:^' 


sawpp* 


'««.■ 


1£ 


w^  f%  '^m:^ 


'1^^ 


CL 

.:5 

<o 

*^ 

Ic 

^ 

3 

1 

« 

^»^ 

1^ 

*!5 

»-i 

CL 

♦w 
^ 

|zi 

o 

^ 

$ 

iz; 

(U 

1 

^ 

c 

t^ 

o 

bi) 

rs 

•25 

8 

-< 

3 

Iz; 

E 

.«0 

<o> 

M 

cj 

"Ki 

jif^ 

rt 

CO 

1^ 

-*-* 
«<*-» 

Ph 

v.! 

^ 

O 

5^ 

1 

% 

-a 

8 

^ 

E 

Si 

s 

1^ 

CL 

<f^', 


^^ 


OF  A 

DZSBATS  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISK, 

BET  WEEK 


>N,  AND 


MR.  JOHN  WALKER,  A  MINISTER  OF  THE  SECESSION,  AND  MR* 
ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL,  A  BAPTIST  MINISTER^ 

Published  by  Mr.  Campbell; 


SliRIES  OF  LETTERS, 

ADDRESSED  AND  DEDICATED    TO    THE  UNITED  PRESBTTEHIASr  CON- 
GBEGATIOKS  OF 

MINGO  CHEEK  AND  WILLI  AMSPORT, 

BY  THEIB  AFFECTI01?ATE  PASTOTa, 

SAMUEL  RALJSTOJV. 


Second  Edition  Corrected  and  Amended. 
TO  WHICH  IS  NOW  ADDED, 


70  OBJECTIONS  MADE  BT  BOTH  MR.  CAMPBELL   AND 

"*"'■  .         .       '  MR,   WALKER. 


"He  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause  seemeth  just;  but  his  neigh- 
bour Cometh  and  searcheth  him."     Soeomon, 
♦'Search  the  Scriptures."     Christ. 


WASHINGTON,  PA. 

Printed  hy  John  Grai/son, 
1825„ 


Western  District  ofPennsyhania,  to  wit: 

BE  IT  REMEiMBERED,  That  OH  the  eighteenth  day 
of  May,  in  the  forty-ninth  year  of  the  independance 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  A.  D.  1825,  Sam- 
uel Ralstox,  pastor  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
Congregations  of  Mingo  Creek  and  Williamsport,  of 
the  said  district,  hath  deposited  in  this  office,  the  ti- 
tle of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  author,  in  the  words 
following,  to  wit:  "A  Review  of  a  Debate  on  Christian  Baptism, 
between  Mr.  John  Walker,  a  minister  of  the  Secession,  and  Mr. 
Alexander  Campbell,  a  baptist  minister;  in  a  series  of  letters, 
addressed  and  dedicated  to  the  United  Presbyterian  Congrega- 
tions of  Mingo  Creek  and  Williamsport,  by  their  affectionate  pas- 
tor, Samuel  Ralston,  second  edition  corrected  and  amended.  To 
which  is  added  a  reply  to  objections  made  by  both  Mr.  Campbell 
and  Mr.  Walker.  *Hethat  is  first  in  his  own  cause  seemethjust; 
but  his  neighbour  cometh  and  searcheth  him' — Solomon.  *Search 
the  Scriptures' — Christ" 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  congress  of  the  United  States, 
entitled,  **An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  secimng 
the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  propri- 
etors of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned." — And 
also  to  the  Act,  entitled,  ♦'An  act  supplementary  to  an  act,  en- 
titled, "An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing 
the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  propri- 
etors of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned,"  and 
extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  engrav- 
ing, and  etching  historical  and  other  prints." 

WM.  WALKER,  Cl&rh 


CONTENTS. 


*v^ 


LETTER  r. 

Covenant  of  circumcision  not  the  covenant  of  grace;  nor  cove- 
nant whereby  the  land  of  Canaan  was  secured  to  the  J*ews — the 
land  of  Canaan  secured  to  the  Jews  by  the  covenant  recorded  in 
Gen.  15. — The  church  defined — the  church  in  the  wiMemess  a 
real  church  of  God. — The  identity  of  the  Patriarchal,  Abrahamic, 
and  Christian  churches  ^^(^ued  from  Rom.  11.  and  Eph.  2. — The 
right  of  the  infants  of  cliurch  members  to  baptism  argued  from 
Mark  10:  14,  and  Acts  2:  38,  39 — covenant  mentioned  in  Gal.  3; 
and  Rom.  4:  the  same — positive  precept  and  precedent — objec- 
tions answered — comparative  practical  eifect  of  the  Baptist,  and 
Pedobaptist  system. 

LETTER  IL 

The  right  of  infants  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  argued  from 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  OiKog,j^The  baptism  of  the  Hou- 
ses of  Lydia,  of  the  Jailor,  of  Cornefeus,  and  of  Stephanas  ex- 
amined, and  objections  answered — Their  right  argued  from  Mat. 
28:  19;  and  1  Cor.  7: 14— Dr.  Gill's  and  Mr.  C*s  exposition  of  this 
passage  examined,  and  exposed. 

LETTER  m. 

That  an  evangelical  faith  and  repentance  are  not  required  of  an 
adult  in  order  to  baptism  argued  from  Isai.  5:  1—4;  Luke  13:  5-9; 
and  Acts  2:  38 — John's  baptism — the  baptism  of  the  Jews  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost — of  the  Samaritans,  and  Simon  Magus — of  the 
Eunuch — -of  Lydia,  and  the  Jailor  examined — objections  answered. 

LETTER  IV. 

The  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  baptizo  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment— of  the  prepositions  en,  els,  ck,  and  apo — John's  baptism — 
baptism  of  the  3000  on  the  day  of  Pentecost — of  the  Eunuch — of 
Saul — of  Cornelius,  and  his  friends — of  Lydia — of  the  Jailor — and 
of  Christ,  considered — The  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptism 
emblematical  oi  the  pouring  out  of  the  spirit's  influences — charge 
that  Pedobaptism  uniformly  lestds  to  persecution,  examined,  and 
repelled — The  spirit  and  tendency  of  anabaptism  examined. 

LETTER  V. 

Alledged  misrepresentations  answered — objection  to  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  being  an  ecclesiastical  covenant  answered — 
Mr.  C's  defence  of  his  saying,  "that  Judaism  was  essentially  oppo- 
site to  Christianity,"  examined — Queries  respecting  Joel  2.  and 
Acts  2:  38,  39,  answered — Address  to  Mr.  C. 


JV  CONTENTS. 

LETTER  VI. 

Objections  against  circumcision  and  baptism  being  means  of  re- 
generation, answered — sinners  are  required  to  pray  for  regenera- 
ting- grace — The  word  '^Saijjts/'  when  predicated  of  members 
of  the  christian  church,  does  not  mean  regenerated  persons  only 
=— Address  to  Mr.  C. 

LETTER  VIL 

Objection  to  the  argument  that  haptisma,  and  baptizo,  are  used 
in  ditferent  senses,  answered — classical  authority  that  bapto  and 
haptizoy  are  used  to  signify  to  sprinkle,  or  besmear — Baptismos 
and  baptizo  used  in  Heb.  9:  10;  1  Cor.  10:  2;  Luke  12:  50;  and 
1  Cor.  12:  13,  to  signify  to  sprinkle — quotation  from  Dr.  Rice's 
Pamphleteer. — OwE>r,  Calvij^,  Beza,  Mastricht,  and  Leigh 
say,  that  baptizo  signifies  to  wash  by  sprinkling,  as  well  as  by  im- 
mersion— baptizo  when  denoting  the  mean  of  initiation  into  the 
church  used  in  its  secondary  sense — baptism  by  sprinkling  suited 
to  all  persons,  in  every  climate,  and  every  season  of  the  year:  not 
50  by  immersion — Saul  of  Tarsus  baptised  while  standing. 

LETTER  Vin. 

Mr,  C's  attack  on  the  characters  of  Calvin,  and  John  Knox  the 
Scotish  reforaier  repelled — that  adults  must  profess  faith  in  Christ 
before  they  are  baptised,  a  principle  common  to  Baptists  andPe- 
dobaptists. — Inadequacy  of  Mr.  C's  proof  of  an  unbroken  chain  of 
a  Baptist  church  from  the  apostolic  age  to  the  present  day — Proof 
of  a  Pedobaptist  church  in  the  first  century,  from  Acts  2:  39;  8: 
12,  &c. — from  Irenseus  and  Justin  Martyr  in  the  second — from  Ter- 
tuUian,  Origen,  and  Cyprian  in  3d — from  Augustine  and  Jerome 
in  the  4th — and  from  Pelagius  and  Celestius,  in  the  5th  centuiies 
— not  necessary  to  prosecute  the  proof  farther — testimony  of  Dr. 
Wall,  and  acknowledgement  of  !Mr.  WmsTO^f  a  Baptist — Ad- 
dress to  Mr.  C. — Address  to  Philalethes. 

LETTER  IX. 

Charge  of  misrepresentation  examined  and  repelled — Mr.  C's 
argument  against  infant  baptism,  that  faith  is  required  in  or- 
der to  baptism,  examined — ^^Ir.  Macalia's  argument  for  the  iden- 
tity of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church — ilr.  C's  objections  to 
lit-.  M's  argument,  and  to  my  argument  from  Rom.  11:  13-25,  and 
Eph.  2:  12-22,  examined,  and  answered — Objection  to  the  ar- 
gument for  infant  baptism  from  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word 
QlJrQs — fi-oxn  the  baptism  of  the  House  of  the  Jailor — of  Lydia — 
of  Cornelius — of  Stephanas,  answered — other  families,  besides 
that  of  Stephanas  baptised  in  Corinth — A  feeble  reply  to  the  ar- 
guments for  infant  baptism,  from  Acts  2:38,  39;  from  Mat.  28: 
19;  and  1  Cor.  7:  14 — Mr.  C's  new  precept  and  precedent  for  fe- 
male communion,  examined,  and  exposed. 


CO>fTENTS.  V 

LETTER  X. 
Dan.  4:  33;  Lev.  14:  15,  l6;  and  Rev.  19;  13,  adduced  as  in- 
stances of  hapto  being  used  to  signify  to  weti  or  to  stain — Objec-- 
tions  to  the  argument  that  haptizo  in  Heb.  9:  10;  1  Cor.  10:  2;  2 
Pet.  3:  21,  means  to  sprinkle,  answered — Dr.  M'Knight's  notes  on 
2  Peter  3:  21;  and  Rom.  6:  3,  4,  examined — Objections  to  the  ex- 
position of  Luke  12:  50;  and  1  Cor.  12:  13,  answered— ilr.  C's- 
new  theory  of  prepositions— Objections  to  the  argument  for  bap- 
tism by  affusion,  from  John's  baptism— the  baptism  of  the  3000— 
the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch— the  baptism  of  Cornelius— and  the 
baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  answered — Address  to  the  baptised 
youth. 

LETTER  I.  TO  MR.  WALKER. 

The  covenant  of  grace  defined— If  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
was  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  is  affirmed  by  Mr.  W.  then,  all  the 
circumcised,  and  all  the  baptised  must  be  saved. — The  meaning 
of  the  word  ^'^everlasting"  in  Gen.  17:  7,  considered— Psal.  89:  35, 
26t  has  no  reference  to  the  covenant  of  circumcision. — Gal.  3:  29, 
has  reference  to  the  invisible,  and  not  to  the  visible  church — 
Heb.  8:  8-10,  not  a  proof  that  the  covMiant  of  circumcision  was 
the  covenant  of  grace — Objections  to  the  position,  that  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  was  an  '^Ecclesiastical  covenant,"  answered 
—Rom.  3:  1,  2,  examined,^  and  shewn  to  be  an  unequivocal  proof, 
that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace 
—Abraham  the  father  of  a  natural,  and  spiritual  seed— the  one  en- 
titled to  church-membership  on  account  of  his  circumcision:  the 
other  to  eternal  life  on  account  of  their  own  faith. 

LETTER  n. 

Objection  that  a  speculative  faith  is  disobedience  and  displea- 
sing to  God,  examined,  and  refuted— That  unregenerate  persons 
may  be  introduced  into  the  church,,  argued  from  the  fact,  that  A- 
braham's  male  household  amounting  to  318,  and  the  generation  of 
Jews  born  in  the  wilderness,  amounting  to  600,000,  were  circum- 
cised by  the  command  of  God,  without  reference  to  their  charac- 
ter, as  pious,  or  not  pious— Objections  to  Psal.  87r  5;  Gal.  4:  26; 
and  Rom.  11:  20,  as  proofs  that  the  church  is  the  usual  birth-place 
of  the  children  of  grace,  answered. — Objection  to  the  interpreta- 
tion given  to  the  Greek  verb  metanoesatCy  and  to  the  words,  "be 
baptised  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  in  Acts  2:  38,  answered— The  cases  of  Simon 
Magus,  and  the  Samaritans  reconsidered— Objections  to  what  is 
said  in  third  letter  respecting  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  and  of 
Lydia,  answered — The  objection,  that  to  introduce  unregenerate 
persons  into  the  church,  corrupts  the  church,  operates  more 
against  Mr.  W*s  system,  than  that  which  he  opposes,  and  over- 
turns Paidobaptism — John's  baptism  not  christian  baptism,  argued 
from  Acts  19: 1-5,  and  from  other  passages  of  the  scriptures— 
Objectiona^Rswered, 
*2 


BHSFAOE. 


%. 


IT  is  not  improbable,  but  that  som^  on  reading  the  title 
page  of  this  book,  ma j  exclaim,  What !  another  book  on 
Baptism — Has  there  not  been  enougli  written  on  that  sub- 
ject; and  can  any  thing  more  clear  and  forcible  be  said, 
than  is  said  bj  Peter  Edwards  in  his  * 'Candid  reasons 

FOR  RENOUNCING  ANTI-PEDOBAPTISM?" 

To  this  I  would  only  observe,  that  although  I  am  per- 
suaded that  light  is  yet  to  be  shed  on  the  question,  "What 
is  the  real  character  of  the  church,  and  for  what  purpose 
was  she  erected  in  our  world;"  I  would  not  have  publish- 
ed a  single  sentence  on  that  point,  nor  jet  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,  had  not  Mr.  Campbell  changed  the  former 
ground  of  the  controversy,  by  denying  principles  in  rela- 
tion to  the  church,  which  have  been  admitted  by  all  baptist 
writers  who  have  preceded  him,  Mr.  Jones  excepted. 
These  principles,  in  my  opinion,  involve  in  them,  the  es- 
sence of  the  question;  and  for  my  own  part,  I  cannot  de- 
fend infant  baptism,  but  by  that  view  of  the  church  which 
I  have  taken,  and  exhibited  in  the  following  letters — If  it 
is  scriptural,  as  I  believe  it  is,  it  saps  the  foundation  or 
the  baptist  system. 

Mr.  C.  has  repeatedly  asserted,  that  the  Greek  word: 
baptizo,  signifies  "to  immerse,  and  to  immerse  only;: 
and  that  it  is  so  used  by  all  writers  sacred  and  profane,  a 
few  'interested'  Pedobaptists  excepted. "  The  bold  and 
confident  manner  in  which  this  assertion  is  made,  is  cal- 
culated to  make  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  un- 
learned; it  was  therefore  thought  necessary,  and  deemed 
a  duty  to  undeceive  such,  and  to  rescue  the  church  of  God 
from  that  obloquy  which  he  has  poured  upon  her,  under 
the  Abrahamic  dispensation  of  grace^     He  ha3  also  min- 


VIU  PREFACE. 

gled  with  his  discussions  on  baptism,  much  obloquy  and- 
indiscriminate  abuse  of  the  Pedobaptist  clergy,  with  the 
evident  design  of  producing  anarchy  in  their  churches, 
and  I  am  persuaded,  with  the  expectation,  that  he  himself 
would  be  chosen,  "to  ride  on  the  whirlwind,  and  direct 
the  storm."  This,  I  have  passed  by  with  a  few  occasional 
remarks,  being  confident  that  all  his  efforts  will  be  una- 
vailing with  the  intelligent  and  serious  part  of  the  reform- 
ed churches,  and  that  the  unceasing  slander  which  he  has 
poured  out  on  their  pastors,  in  almost  every  page  of  his 
writings,  will  ultimately  recoil  on  himself. 

I  shall  only  farther  observe,  that  I  have  endeavoured  to 
be  as  perspicuous  and  concise,  as  the  subject,  and  the 
range  which  the  controversy  has  taken,  would  admitj  and 
if  I  shall  have  succeeded  in  undeceiving  a  single  indivi- 
dual who  may  have  been  in  danger  of  being  led  astray  by 
Mr.  C's  confident  and  unfounded  assertions,  my  labour 
in  writing  will  be  fully  compensated.  I  commit  this  book 
to  the  guidance  and  care  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church, 
praying,  that  he  will  pardon  what  is  mine,  and  bless 
whatever  in  it  is  agreeable  to  his  holy  word,  to  the  estab- 
lishing the  reader  in  *Hhe  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints.," 


REVIEW 

^F   A    DEBATE    ON 


LETTER  L 


YOU  ask  my  opinion  of  such  public  debates,  and  of 
this  one  in  particular.  I  have  never  had  but  one  opinion 
of  such  exhibitions,  as  it  is  victory,  and  not  searching  after 
truth,  that  is  usually  the  object  of  ther  combatants;  and 
should  any  of  tliem,  at  the  beginning,  found  their  argument 
on  false  principles,  this  will  necessarily  lead  them  to  adopt 
other  principles  equally  false,  in  defence  of  the  original 
one;  and  thus  the  whole  must  end  in  worse  than  unprofit- 
able and  indecisive  wrangling. 

We  have  a  striking  example  of  this  in  the  debate  now 
under  review. — Mr.  \Valker  assumed  as  his  fundamental 
principle,  that  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham, recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  of  which 
circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal,  was  the  covenant  of 
grace;  whence  he  argued  the  right  of  the  infants  of  church 
members  to  be  introduced  into  the  church  by  baptism,  as 
they  had  from  the  establishment  of  that  covenant  been  in- 
troduced by  circumcision;  the  former,  under  the  present 
dispensation,  coming  in  the  place  of  the  latter.  Now,  as 
circumcision  was  the  seal  which  God  himself  affixed  to 
that  covenant,  and  as  a  seal,  the  moment  it  is  affixed, 
gives  the  person  on  whose  behalf  the  covenant  was  made, 
all  the  advantages  therein  contained;  it  follows  by  inevi- 
table consequence,  that  if  that  covenant  was  the  covenant 
of  grace,  then,  every  circumcised  person  must  be  saved; 
and  if  baptism  is  come  in  the  room  of  circumxision,  that 
every  baptized  person  must  be  saved  also — a  position,  I 
am  persuaded,  which  no  Pedobaptist  will  defend.  Some 
Pedobaptist  writers,  who,  with  Mr.  W.  have  assum.ed  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  as  the  protomartyr  Stephen 


10 

emphatically  calls  it,  was  the  covenant  of  grace,  have  en- 
deavoured to  free  themselves  from  the  above  consequence, 
by  saying,  that  there  is  an  external  and  internal  relation 
to  the  covenant  of  grace;  and  that  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism form  the  external  relation  only.  But  what  is  an  ex- 
ternal relation  to  a  covenant?  Is  it  not,  in  other  words,  to 
be  out  of  a  covenant?  If  the  word  has  any  meaning  at  all, 
this  it  must  be;  but  as  circumcision  was  the  seal  which 
Jehovah  himself  affixed  to  that  covenant,  then,  whatever 
that  covenant  was,  it  follows,  that  the  instant  a  proper 
subject  was  circumcised,  that  moment  he  became  interest- 
ed in  all  its  privileges  and  appurtenances. 

You  are  now,  no  doubt,  ready  to  ask,  what  was  that 
covenant  or  dispensation,  as  it  alters  not  the  case,  nor  af- 
fects the  argument  by  which  of  these  names  it  may  be 
called;  and  what  were  the  advantages  thereby  secured  te 
the  circumcised?  I  answer,  it  may  be  called  an  ecclesi- 
astical covenant;  or  a  covenant  whereby  Jehovah  was 
pleased  to  bind  himself  by  the  seal  of  circumcision,  to 
send  a  Redeemer  of  the  family  of  Abraham  into  the  world 
— to  preserve  in  his  family  a  visible  church,  until  that  Re- 
deemer should  come;  and,  as  his  infinite  wisdom  saw  best, 
to  appoint,  from  time  to  time,  and  continue  with  them 
such  ordinances  as  would  be  the  best  medium  of  accepta- 
ble worship,  and  best  calculated  to  interest  them  in  the 
merits  of  this  Redeemer;  and  when  this  Redeemer  v/ould 
come,  to  ingraft  the  Gentile  nations  into  this  church,  and 
consequently  to  bestow  upon  them  those  means  equally 
with  the  Jews.  In  a  word,  it  was  a  covenant,  or  dispen- 
sation, graciously  designed,  and  wisely  calculated,  as  a 
mean  to  an  end,  to  interest  them  in  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  consisting  in  pardon,  sanctification, 
and  eternal  life. 

Mr.  Campbell,  on  the  other  hand,  affirms  again  and 
again,  "that  its  promised  blessings  were  temporal — every 
one  temporal — that  circumcision  conveyed  no  spiritual 
blessings  to  the  Jews — It  guaranteed  that  they  should  be 
a  numerous  and  powerful  nation— that  God  would  be 
their  king,  and  that  they  would  individually  inherit  the 
land  of  Canaan." 

The  apostle  Paul,  however,  teaches  otherwise  in  the 
third  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  first  verse.  As 
if  he  foresaw  that  in  future  days  such  bold  and  unscriptu- 


ral  assertions  would  be  made  for  the  purpose  of  supporting 
a  favourite  system,  he  proposes  their  objection  in  almost 
their  own  words,  and  then  gives  it  an  answer,  which  one 
would  think  would  silence  the  objection  forever.  "What 
advantage  hath  the  Jew?  and  what  profit  is  there  of  cir- 
cumcision? Much  every  way,  but  chiefly  because  that 
unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  And 
what  he  meant  by  the  oracles  of  God,  he  tells  us  in  detail 
in  the  9th  chapter  of  the  same  epistle.  '*To  them  pertain- 
ed the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the 
giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promi- 
ses: whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  concerning  the 
flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever." 
And  as  if  this  was  not  sufficient  to  prevent  such  bold  and 
unscriptural  assertions,  the  same  apostle,  in  the  third  chap- 
ter of  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  quotes  the  principal 
provision  of  that  covenant,  and  styles  it  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  to  Abraham.  "And  the  sciipture  foreseeing 
that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached 
before  the  gospel  to  Abraham,  saying,  in  thee  shall  all 
nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  From  these  quotations 
then  it  appears,  that  besides  the  promise  of  a  Redeemer, 
that  covenant  sealed  or  confirmed  to  all  the  circumcised, 
all  those  ordinances,  which  infinite  wisdom  saw  best  cal- 
culated to  interest  them  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  to  be 
purchased  by  his  blood,  together  with  the  sanctification 
of  their  natures,  or  what  is  emphatically  styled  ''the  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart;"  in  allusion  to  which  circumcision 
is  called  '<«  sign,"  as  well  as  "a  sea/." 

I  am  aware  that  it  will  now  be  asked,  was  not  the  pos- 
session  of  the  land  of  Canaan  promised  to  Abraham  in 
that  covenant;  and  is  it  not  expressly  mentioned  as  one  of 
its  provisions?  It  is  indeed  recognised  in  that  covenant,  as 
what  was  secured  to  him  and  his  seed  in  another  and  dis- 
tinct covenant,  recorded  in  the  15th  chapter;  but  which 
Mr.  C.  for  very  prudential  reasons,  as  respects  his  sys- 
tem, has  entirely  overlooked  in  that  catalogue  of  the 
scripture  covenants  which  he  has  given  us  in  the  appendix 
to  his  book.  ''And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  I  am  the 
Lord  which  brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  to 
give  thee  this  land  to  inherit  it.  And  Abraham  said, 
Lord  God,  whereby  shall  I  know  that  I  shall  inherit  it? 
And  God  said  unto  him,  take  me  a  heifer  of  thjree  years 


12 

old,  and  a  she  goat  of  three  years  old,  and  a  ram  of  three 
years  old,  and  a  turtle-dove,  and  a  young  j)igeon.  And 
Abraham  took  unto  him  all  these,  and  he  divided  them  in 
the  midst;  and  laid  each  one  against  another,  but  the  birds 
divided  he  not. — And  it  came  to  pass  when  the  sun  was 
down,  and  it  was  dark,  behold  a  smoking  furnace  and  a 
burning  lamp  that  passed  between  these  pieces.  In  the 
same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  say- 
ing unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of 
Egypt  unto  the  great  river  Euphrates." 

I  am  aware  also,  that  Mr.  C.  may  reply;  all  this  affects 
not  his  system,  for  he  denies  that  there  was  a  visible 
church  in  the  world  until  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

It  is  no.doubt  a  matter  of  surprise  to  you,  and  to  others 
who  read  your  Bibles,  that  he  should  have  the  effrontery 
to  contradict  Stephen,  who  told  the  Jews  "that  Moses 
was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness  with  the  angel  that 
spake  unto  him  in  Mount  Smai,  and  with  their  fathers, 
who  received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  them:" 
Acts  vii.  28.  The  secret  is  this — Mr.  Peter  Edwards,  of 
England,  had  proved  beyond  all  contradiction,  by  a  plain 
and  simple  logical  process,  the  ri^ht  of  infants  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  church  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism;  and 
as  it  had  not  been  denied  when  he  wrote,  that  the  Jewish 
nation  was  a  \isible  church  of  God;  and  as  it  was  undeni- 
able that  infants  were  introduced  into  that  church  by  cir- 
cumcision; and  as  their  right  was  not  repealed  by  Christ  or 
his  apostles,  but  recognised  by  both;  and  as  baptism  is 
now  the  rite  of  initiation,  he  drew  this  fair  and  irresistible 
consequence,  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized.  It  requi- 
red no  great  degree  of  penetration  to  see,  that  this  simple 
and  plain  argument  overturned  the  whole  Baptist  system 
respecting  infants.  Something  must  be  done  to  prop  the 
tottering  fabric,  and  as  nothing  else  could  avail,  the  late 
David  Jones,  a  Baptist  minister,  ventured  on  the  bold  ex- 
pedient of  denying  that  there  was  a  church  of  God  on 
earth,  until  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist,  which  has  been 
re-echoed  by  Mr.  C.  mth  this  difference,  that  Mr.  C. 
dates  his  church  from  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  the  first 
'  church  at  Jerusalem.  The  reason  why  Mr.  Jones  com- 
menced his  church  with  John  the  Baptist  probably  was,  to 
maintain  the  propriety  of  the  name  v/hich  Baptists  have 
assumed;  and  perhaps  the  reason  why  Mr.   C.  differed 


13 

from  him  was,  that  he  saw  the  absurdity  of  dating  the 
Christian  church  with  a  man  who  died  before  the  Cliristian 
dispensation  commenced. 

When  Mr.  W.  adduced  the  words  of  Stephen  as  a 
proof  that  there  was  a  church  in  the  wilderness,  what  is 
Mr.  C's  reply?  That  the  Greek  word  ecclesia,  which  is 
translated  church,  signifies  any  kind  of  an  assembly;  and 
that  it  is  used  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  to 
signify  a  lawful  and  unlawful  assembly,  as  well  as  the 
church  of  Christ. — That  it  is  by  some  accompanying  epi- 
thet, or  other  circumstance,  that  we  are  to  ascertain  in 
which  of  these  senses  we  are  to  understand  the  word;  and 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  adduced  that  can  lead 
us  to  understand  it  in  any  other  sense,  than  merely  the 
multitude  of  the  Jews  assembled  in  the  wilderness.  At 
any  rate,  he  tells  us,  <'That  it  was  an  assembly  or  church 
of  Jews,  and  not  an  assembly  of  Christians,  or  a  church  of 
Jesus  Christ."     p.  41,  42. 

This  last  part  of  the  reply,  which  I  have  stated  in  his 
own  words,  is  not  only  a  quibble,  but  a  very  sorry  quibble; 
and  similar  to  an  objection  which  he  brings  against  infant 
baptism — that  baptism  is  not  mentioned  in  the  17th  chap- 
ter of  Genesis.  For,  was  it  to  be  expected  that  the  church 
of  God  w^ould  assume,  or  be  called  by  the  name  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  until  he  should  come  into  the  world;  or 
that  an  ordinance  would  be  called  by  its  name  tvv^o  thou- 
sand years  before  the  dispensation  of  which  it  was  a  part, 
commenced,  and  when  another  ordinance  that  prefigured 
it,  was  just  appointed? 

With  respect  to  the  first  part  of  the  reply,  there  is  that 
in  the  passage  which,  in  my  opinion,  fixes  the  meaning  of 
the  word  ''church"  as  the  church  of  God.  Stephen  tells 
us  that  in  this  church  in  the  wilderness,  there  was  an  an- 
gel, emphatically^  styled  the  angel  who  spake  unto  Mo- 
ses in  Mount  Sinai,  and  delivered  to  him  what  he  calls 
"the  lively  oracles,"  to  be  delivered  to  their  fathers,  or 
the  ordinances  respecting  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  I  ex- 
pect that  it  will  be  admitted  that  this  angel  was  none  otli- 
er  than  the  Son  of  God;  and  the  circumstance  of  his  deliv- 
ering to  the  Jews,  by  the  hand  of  Moses,  the  lively  oracles, 
is  a  proof  that  they  were  a  church  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  word:  for  what  is  a  church  of  God,  but  a  number  of 
persons  set  apart  for  worshipping  him  agreeably  to  his 
own  institutions?  3 


14 

That  the  principle  I  wish  to  establish  may  be  the  more 
clearly  seen,  and  the  merits  of  the  debate  now  under  re- 
view clearly  seen  also;  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  few  ob- 
servations respecting  the  commencement,  nature  and  de- 
sign of  the  church  of  God.  I  agree  with  Mr,  C.  that  the 
Greek  word  eccksia,  Vt^hich  is  translated  church,  signifies 
a  number  of  persons  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  worship- 
ping God,  and  this  implies  in  it  their  being  possessed  of 
ordinances  of  divine  appointment,  as  the  medium  of  accep- 
table worship,  and  means  of  grace;  but  I  object,  when  he 
says  that  all  these  persons  must  be  saints,  ''or  called  from 
darkness  to  God's  marvellous  light "  Saints,  or  persons 
regenerated  in  the  church,  are  indeed  a  component  part  of 
it;  but  it  was  designed  to  embrace  others,  whose  duty  and 
privilege  it  is  to  attend  on  the  ordinances  of  divine  ap- 
pointment, that  by  the  blessing  of  God  on  his  ov/n  ordi- 
nances they  may  be  regenerated.  For  this  definition  of 
the  church  I  have  the  authority  of  Clu'ist,  who  compares 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  gospel  church,  to  "a  net 
cast  into  the  sea,  which  gathered  of  every  kind,"  and  to 
<'ten  virgins,  five  of  which  were  wse  and  five  foolish;" 
and  farther  proofs  of  the  justness  of  this  definition  will  be 
adduced  in  the  course  of  these  letters. 

Now,  that  there  was  a  church  of  this  character  from 
Adam  to  Abraham,  is  clearly  intimated  from  what  is  said 
in  the  oth  chapter  of  Genesis  concerning  Seth;*  "that  to 
him  was  a  son  born,  and  he  called  his  name  Enos;  then  be- 
gan men  to  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  or  as  it  is  in 
the  margin,  "then  men  began  to  call  themselves  by  the 
name  of  the  Lord,"  probably  in  contradistinction  to  Cain, 

*  The  existence  of  the  church  as  a  medium  of  redemption  may- 
be traced  to  the  very  first  promise  in  Genesis  2:  15.  A  Redeemer 
under  the  appellation  of  the  "seed  of  the  woman"  was  then  pro- 
mised. **The  coats  of  skins"  with  which  the  Lord  God  clothed 
Adam  and  Eve,  were  doubtless  the  skins  of  beasts  offered  in  sa- 
crifice, as  there  was  then  no  need  of  the  flesh  of  beasts  for  food; 
nor  were  the  beasts  g-iven  to  man  for  food,  until  after  the  deluge. 
Those  coats  were  doubtless  figurative  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
Redeemer  which  is  frequently  compared  to  a  garment,  which  co- 
vers the  moral  nakedness  of  those  who  put  it  on  by  the  hand  of 
faith.  Luke  15:  22.  Rev.  3:  18.  Abel's  offering  up  the  firstlings 
of  his  flock  in  sacrifice  to  God  was  doubtless  one  circumstance  that 
rendered  the  offering  acceptable,  while  Cain's  was  rejected;  as 
Abel's  offering  had  reference  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  while  Cain's 
iiad  no  such  reference. 


15 

who  is  said  to  have  gone  out  ''from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord;"  or  separated  himself  and  descendants  from  his  true 
worshippers.  And  hence,  no  doubt,  the  distinction  be- 
tween ''the  sons  of  God,  and  the  daughters  of  men,"  the 
intermarriage  of  which  was  the  cause  of  the  universal  del- 
uge; the  latter  seducing  the  former  into  idolatry.  The 
church  at  this  period  was  indeed  patriarchal,  or  confined 
to  the  families  of  the  faithful;  every  head  of  a  family  being 
king  and  priest  of  the  family,  who  offered  up  sacrifice, 
the  only  mode  of  initiation,  medium  of  worship,  and  mean 
of  grace,  that  we  read  of  at  that  time,  both  on  his  own  be- 
half, and  on  behalf  of  liis  family.  This  did  Abel — ^this 
did  Noah,  vvhen  he  came  out  of  the  ark — and  "this  did  Job 
continually,"  In  the  days  of  Abraham,  polytheism  and 
idolatry  so  far  prevailed  as  to  threaten  tlie  very  existence 
of  the  church;  whereupon,  God  revealed  liimself  to  that 
distinguished  personage,  made  the  covenant  with  him  al- 
ready alluded  to,  and  bound  himself  by  the  seal  of  circum-: 
cision  "to  be  a  God  to  him,  and  to  ms  seed  after  him," 
or  to  maintain  a  visible  church  in  his  family,  or  the  means 
of  grace,  which  he  had  appointed  for  the  salvation  of  sin- 
ners. The  privileges  of  the  church  were  also  enlarged 
at  this  time,  by  the  appointment  of  circumcision  as  a  mode 
of  initiation  for  the  males,  infinite  wisdom  seeing  that 
the  ancient  mode  of  sacrifice  answered  all  the  purpose  to 
the  females;  females,  as  well  as  males,  being  permitted  to 
eat  of  the  sacrifices.  And  as  an  intimation  that  in  due 
time  the  Gentiles  would  be  taken  into  the  church,  Ishma- 
el,  and  the  servants  of  Abraham,  "born  in  his  house,  of 
bought  with  his  money  from  any  stranger,"  were  allowed 
to  be  circumcised,  together  with  proselytes  from  the  sur- 
rounding nations.  In  Egypt  another  ordinance  v/as  ad- 
ded— the  ordinance  of  the  passover,  designed  not  only  as 
a  commemoration  of  the  deliverance  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael from  Eg}^tian  bondage,  but  of  a  far  greater  deliver- 
ance which  Jehovah  had  promised  to  accomplish  in  due 
time — the  deliverance  of  guilty  sinners  by  the  sacrifice  of 
his  Son;  for  an  inspired  writer  tells  us,  "even  Cln-ist 
our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us."  In  the  wilderness  va- 
rious sacrifices  and  ablutions  were  added,  the  former  in- 
dicating the  necessity  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice  for  sin,  and 
the  latter,  like  circumcision,  signifying  the  necessity  of 
puiity  of  heart  in  order  to  salvation.     When  they  entered 


16 

the  promised  land,  every  male  was  required  to  appear 
thrice  annually  before  the  Lord  in  the  temple  of  Jerusa- 
lem, for  the  purpose  of  offering  those  sacrifices  which  the 
law  required.  Here  then,  we  have  all  the  characteristics 
of  a  church  of  God — a  people  separated  from  the  world, 
and  furnished  with  ordinances  for  his  service;  and  ordi- 
nances too,  as  I  shall  show  in  the  proper  place,  that  pre- 
figured the  positive  institutions  under  the  present  dispen- 
sation. Hence,  then,  we  find  that  people  designated  as 
'■'a  chosen  nation" — "a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  na- 
tion"— ''and  a  peculiar  treasure"  to  God,  above  all  peo- 
ple— epithets  ascribed  by  the  apostle  Peter  to  the  Christi- 
an church.  "But  ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal 
priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  and  a  peculiar  people,  that  ye 
should  shew  forth  the  praises  of  him  v*ho  hath  called  you 
out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light."  1  Pet.  2:  9. 
Hence  we  read  of  ''the  congregation  of  Israel — the  con- 
gregation of  the  Lord — the  congregation  of  saints" — and 
"the  assembly  of  the  saints;"  words  of  the  same  import 
as  "church;"  and  which  might  be  read,  the  church  of 
Israel — the  church  of  the  "Lord-— and  the  church  of  the 
saints:  and  hence,  saith  the  Psalmist,  "I  will  praise  the 
Lord  with  my  whole  heart,  in  the  assembly  cf  the  up- 
right, and  in  tlie  congregatioyi.^'^  From  all  which  the 
reader  is  left  to  judge,  v/hether  Stephen  meant  by  '*f  Ac 
c/mrcA  in  the  wilderness,"  the  church  of  God,  or  the  mere 
multitude  of  the  Israelites — or  an  unlawful  mob. 

But  not  only  is  it  evident  from  the  foregoing  passages, 
and  numberless  others  that  might  be  a.dduced,  that  tlie 
Jewish  nation,  in  consequence  of  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision, was  a  visible  church  of  God;  but  the  vievv^  I  have 
given  cf  it,  exactly  accords  with  vrhat  Jehovah  himself  says 
of  it  in  the  5th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  under  the  metaphor  of  a 
vineyard.  "My  beloved  had  a  vineyard  in  a  very  fruitful 
hill,  and  he  fenced  it,  and  gathered  out  the  stones  thereof, 
:iVxd pkmted  it  with  the  choicest  vine,  and  built  a  tower  in 
t}ie  midst  of  it,  and  also  made  a  wine  press  therein.  And 
he  looked  that  it  should  bring  forth  grp^pes;  and  it  brought 
forth  wild  grapes.  And  now,  0  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
and  men  of  Judah,  judge,  I  pray  you,  betwixt  me  and  my 
vineyard.  What  more  could  be  done  to  my  vineyard 
that  I  have  not  doner  For  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord  of 
hosts  is  the  house  of  Israel,   and  the  men  of  Judah  is  his 


17 

pleasant  plant P  Our  blessed  Lord  appears  to  have  had  a 
view  to  this  allegory  of  the  church  in  liis  parable  of  the 
vineyard,  in  the  13th  chapter  of  Luke  5  and  the  apostle 
Paul  to  both  in  the  6th  chapter  to  the  Romans:  where, 
speaking  of  baptism,  he  styles  it  a  being  planted  in  the 
likeness  of  Christ's  death;  a  proof  by  the  v/ay,  that  he 
considered  circumcision  and  baptism  as  appointed  for  the 
same  purposes. 

It  is  necessary  also  here  to  observe^  that  the  church, 
under  the  patriarchal  and  Abrahamic  dispensations,  was 
not  different  from  that  under  the  dispensation  by  Christ, 
but  one  and  the  same;  differing  indeed  in  external  rites, 
but  the  same  in  substance  and  in  essence.  When  the 
Abrahamic  dispensation  began,  though  new  ordinances 
were  added  to  it,  it  was  yet  ingrafted  into  the  patriarchal 
dispensation,  constituted  a  church  by  sacrifice,  t^'pical  of 
the  death  of  Christ.  That  the  Christian  dispensation  is 
ingrafted  into  the  Abrahamic,  is  affirmed  and  argued  by 
Paul  in  his  epistles  to  the  Christian  churches.  In  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  fitly 
compares  the  covenant  of  circumcision  on  wliich  the  Jew- 
ish church  w^as  founded  to  "a  good  olive  tree" — Abraham, 
with  whom  it  v/as  first  made,  to  "its  root,"  its  provisions 
to  "its  fatness"^and  the  circumcised  offsprings  of  Abra- 
ham to  its  "natural  branches:"  and,  by  a  very  common 
figure  of  speech,  the  Jev^dsh  nation  as  constituting  the 
church  of  God  at  that  time,  are  compared  by  Jeremiah  to 
"a  green  olive  tree,  fair  and  of  goodly  fruit."  He  tells 
us  that  the  natural  branches  v/ ere  broken  off  "because  of 
unbelief,"  or  fir  not  receiving  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  v/ith 
the  exception  of  a  remnant  that  received  him  as  such,  and 
thus  still  adhered  to  the  good  olive  tree,  and  constituted 
the  church.  He  tells  us  also,  that  some  of  the  Gentile 
nations,  Avhom  he  fitly  compares  to  a  wild  olive  tree,  were 
"cut  out  of  this  wild  olive  tree,"  by  believin*  in  Christ, 
and  by  faith  ingrafted  into  the  good  olive  tree,  in  the  place 
of  -tho^^oken  off  branches,  and  "partake  of  its  root  and 
fatness."  And  it  is  worthy  of  particular  attention,  that 
the  apostle,  in  the  23d  and  24th  verses,  alluding  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews,  does  not  say  with  Mr.  C.  that 
they  will  be  ingrafted  into  what  he  calls  the  Christian 
church,  commencing  at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  into 
their  own  olive  tree,  or  that  church  founded  on  the  cove- 


18 

nant  of  circumcision,  and  out  of  which  they  were  cast  by 
their  unbelief.  "And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in 
unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  in,  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them 
in  again.  For  if  tliou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree  which 
is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  grafted  in  contrary  to  nature 
into  the  good  olive  tree,  how  much  more  these  which  be 
the  natural  branches  shall  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive 
TREE?" — grafted  in  with  their  offspring  as  formerly,  "as 
the  bud  is  grafted  in  with  the  branch." 

Let  this  be  recollected;  and  what  now  is  Mr.  C's  inter- 
pretation of  this  beautiful  and  appropriate  allegory?  "The 
good  olive  tree  was  the  Jemsh  nation," — but  not  as  a 
church  of  God,  for  this  he  denies — "the  root  and  fatness 
of  the  good  olive  tree  was  Jesus  Christ;  and  in  a  still  more 
enlarged  and  exalted  sense,  the  Christian  church  is  the. 
good  olive  tree:  the  natural  branches  denote  the  Jews." 
p.  29. 

Let  us  now  test  this  interpretation  by  what  the  apostle 
tells  us  about  this  good  olive  tree  and  its  natural  branches. 
The  natural  branches,  says  he,  were  broken  off  from  the 
good  olive  tree;  that  is,  according  to  Mr.  C's  interpreta- 
tion, the  Jews  were  broken  off  from  the  Jews,  or  the  Jewish 
nation,  from  the  Jewish  nation^  If  we  will  try  it  by  the 
h^^othesis  that  the  Christian  church  was  the  good  olive 
tree,  it  will  be  this:^ — The  Jews,  the  natural  branches  of 
the  Christian  church,,  were  broken  off  from  the  Christian 
church:  but,  according  to  Mr.  C's  system,  the  Christian 
church  did  not  commence  until  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and, 
the  Jews  were  broken  off  before  this  time  by  their  not  re- 
ceiving Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  crucifying  him  as  ait 
impostor.  I  need  scarcely  say  that  the  absurdity  of  this 
interpretation  is  so  palpable,  as  to  be  almost  capaW^  of 
being  felt,  and  is  as  opposed  to  itself,  as  the  arctic  is  to 
the  antarctic  pole.  But  this  is  not  alL  He  tells  us  in 
the  foregoing  page,  "that  Judaism  and  Gentilism  were 
both  distinct  from  and  essentially  opposite  to  Christianity." 
What  now  shall  I  say  to  this?  I  feel  an  unwillingness  to 
call  it  blasphemy,  or  a  speaking  injuriously  of  God;  and 
yet  I  know  not  a  milder  term  w-hereby  it  can  be  designa- 
ted. Judaism  is  an  universal  term  comprehending  all 
the  doctrines,  commandments,  and  ordinances,  delivered 
by  God  to  Moses;  and  you  are  now  doubtless  ready  to  ask^ 
what  could  induce  him  to  bring  down  the  doctrines  and- 


19 

precepts  of  Judaism  to  a  level  with  the  doctrines  and  pre- 
cepts of  Gentilism;  and  the  ordinances  which  Jehovah  ap- 
pointed for  his  own  worship,  to  a  level  with  the  impure, 
licentious,  and  horrible  rites  of  Gentile  idolaters,  whose 
altars  often  streamed  v/ith  the  blood  of  their  own  children, 
and  of  other  human  victims,  sacrificed  to  theii-  idol  gods? 
The  same  principle  that  induced  him  to  deny  that  there 
w^as  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation,  together  with 
that  unrelenting  hatred  to  infant  baptism  which  he  mani- 
fests in  almost  every  page  of  his  book.  For  he  clearly 
saAv,  that  the  admission  of  a  church  in  that  nation,  and 
that  the  Christian  church  was  ingrafted  into  it,  overturned 
his  whole  system,  and  furnished  Pedobaptists  with  an  un- 
answerable argument  for  infant  baptism,  as  I  hope  ta 
make  a])pear  in  its  proper  place.  Surely  there  is  not  a 
thinking  person  whose  mind  is  not  perverted  by  a  system, 
but  will  say,  there  must  be  something  rotten — rotten  to 
the  very  core,  in  that  system,  to  support  which,  compels 
a  man  to  pour  contempt  on  that  church  of  God,  and  his 
ordinances,  "which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood." 

But  so  intent  is  Mr.  C.  on  degrading  Jews  and  Judaism, 
that  he  insists  that  it  is  impossible  that  they  could  be  a 
church  of  God,  because  the  apostle  says  in  the  S2d  verse 
of  this  chapter,  "that  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in 
unbelief,  that  he  might  have  mercy  on  all,""  and  he  warm- 
ly recommends  this  verse  to  the  consideration  of  all  Pedo- 
baptists. I  have  considered  it,  and  to  understand  it  as 
Mr.  C.  does,  would  be  to  set  the  apostle  in  opposition  to 
himself.  For  although  he  says  that  the  Jewish  nation  in 
general  were  rejected  by  God  from  being  his  church,  be- 
ca^ise  of  their  rejecting  his  Son,  yet  there  was  "a  remnant 
according  to  the  election  of  grace:"  that  although  "blind- 
ness happened  to  Israel,"  it  was  "but  in  part:"  and  that 
only  "some  of  the  branches  were  broken  off."  What  then 
does  he  mean  in  that  verse? — That  Jehovah's  bestowing 
a  dispensation  of  mercy  on  Jews,  or  Gentiles,  was  alto- 
gether an  act  of  sovereign  grace,  as  both  were  equally 
sinners,  and  both  equally  needed  a  redeemer^  and  to  re- 
deem Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  was  the  ultimate  end  for 
which  Christ  came  into  the  world,  and  erected  a  church  as 
a  medium  of  redemption;  and  although  professed  friends 
sometimes  join  with  avowed  infidels,  in  pouring  contempt 


20 

on  that  church,  and  his  holv  word,  he  hath  declared  that 
"the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  And  who 
does  not  see,  that  to  place  Judaism  on  a  level  with  Gen- 
tilism,  is  virtually  sa}^ng,  that  the  Old  Testament  cannot 
be  the  revelation  of  a  holv  Gods  for,  if  Judaism  is  essenti- 
ally opposite  to  Christianitj,  Gentilism  cannot  be  any 
thing  more  than  essentially  so. 

But  this  chapter  is  not  the  only  place  wherein  Paul,. 
who  was  a  Jew  by  birth,  not  only  recognised  the  exis- 
tence of  a  church  in  i!iie  Jewish  nation,  but  affirms  that 
the  Christian  church  was  built  upon  it.  In  the  2d  chap- 
ter of  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  he  says,  ''Wherefore 
remember  that  ye  being  in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh, 
who  are  called  uncircumcision,  by  that  which  is  called  the 
circumcision  in  the  flesh  made  by  hands;  that  at  that  time 
ye  were  without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  common- 
vrealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of 
promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  World : 
but  now  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  sometime  were  afar  off 
are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is  our 
peace,  who  hath  made  both  otie^  and  hath  broken  down  the 
middle  wall  of  partition  between  us.  Now  therefore  ye 
are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens 
with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God:  and  are 
built,"  (not  as  Mr.  C.  says,  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  alone,  but)  "upon  the  foundation  of  the  appstles 
and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone, in  whom  all  the  building  fitly  framed  together, 
groweth  unto  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord. " 

Having  now  proved  the  existence  of  a  church  of  God 
from  Adam  to  Abraham,  and  from  Abraham  to  Christ, 
and  the  identity  or  oneness  of  that  church  under  those 
dispensations,  and  also  the  present  dispensation  of  grace; 
we  are  now  prepared  to  estimate  the  force  or  weakness  of 
Mr.  W*s  arguments  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  drawri 
from,  the  oneness  of  the  church,  and  the  force  or  weakness 
of  Mr.  C's  replies.  The  limits  I  have  assigned  to  this- 
ietter,  mil  not  allow  me  to  review  all  the  arguments  used 
on  the  occasion;  I  shall  therefore  confine  myself  to  those 
that  seem  to  have  most  bearing  on  the  point  in  dispute. 

Mr.  W.  we  are  told,  produced  that  passage  from  one 
©f  the  evangelists,  where  it  is  said,  that  little  children 
were  brought  to  Christ,  that  he  might  put  his  hands  en 


21  •  ' 

them  and  prajj  and  his  disciples  rebuked  them  that 
brought  them — ''But  Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  From  this  passage  Mr.  W.  argued, 
"that  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven  we  must  understand  ei-. 
ther,  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  or  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  above:  if  we  understand  it  of  the  church  on  earth, 
then  doubtless  infants  are  said  to  be  members  of  it;  and  if 
we  suppose  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  the  irndsible 
church  above  is  meant,  t]\en  they  must  be  born  of  the 
Spirit,  and  consecjuently  fit  subjects  for  baptism." 

As  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Ws  argument  from 
this  passage  is  stated  with  accuracy  and  precision,  or  not, 
1  shall  therefore  not  make  any  remarks  upon  it.  ^Ir.  C's 
objections,  however,  are;  that  this  transaction  took  place 
previous  to  ilie  appointment  of  baptism  as  an  initiating 
ordinance  into  the  Christian  church;  and  that  it  w^as  a 
blessing  and  not  baptism  that  was  requested  for  these 
children.  Be  it  so — the  words  "of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven, "  however,  prove  that  Christ  considered  and 
acknowledged  them  as  a  component  part  of  his  church  at 
that  time;  and  Mr.  C.  is  now  called  upon  to  show  at  what 
time,  and  by  whom  they  were  cast  out.  x\ware,  it  would 
seem,  of  the  force  of  this  argument,  he  says,  that  the 
words  ^"of  stfch^^  only  mean  similarity;  and  in  support  of 
this  he  adverts  to  another  passage,  where  it  is  said,  "th-at 
Jesus  called  a  little  child  to' him  and  set  him  in  the  midst 
and  said,  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little 
children,  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. " 
It  is  enough  to  say  in  reply,  that  the  words  "of  such"  and 
"as  little  children"  are  "dissimilar  in  signification;  the 
former  usually  referring  to  persons,  and  the  latter  to 
character.  As  for  the  silly  pun,  which  he  exhibited  on 
the  occasion,  that  as  baptism  and  blessing  both  begin  with 
a  B,  either  will  suit  tlie  advocates  of  infant  baptism.,  I  am 
heartily  willing  that  he  shall  have  all  the  honour  that  be- 
longs to  it;  and  those  who  tlien  heard  it,  and  those  who 
now  read  it,  will  estimate  all  its  worth  and  force. 

Mr.  W.  also  produced,  in  favour  of  infant  baptism, 
Peter's  memorable  address  to  tlie  Jews,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  Acts  2:  38,  39,  "Repent  and  be  baptized  ev- 
ery one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,   and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the   Holy 


22 

Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  to  joii,  and  to  your  children, 
and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  shall  call."  According  to  Mr.  C's  statement  (pages 
50-54)  Mr.  W.  argued,  that  as  the  promise  in  this  passage 
evidently  referred  to  Gen.  17:  7.  "I  will  be  a  God  to 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee^"  and  as  the  children  of 
the  Jews  are  equally  included  with  the  parents  in  it,  when 
he  urged  the  parents  to  be  baptized — that  the  children 
ought  to  be  baptized  also. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  objects,  by  saying  tliat  the  promise  in 
this  passage  does  not  refer  to  Gen.  17:  7,  but  to  the  prom- 
ise of  the  extraordinary  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
mentioned  by  the  prophet  Joel  in  the  second  chapter  of 
his  prophecy,  and  referred  to,  and  applied  by  Peter  from 
the  16th  to  the  21st  verse.  Be  it  so;  and  what  follows? 
This :  that  whatever  that  promise  was,  it  is  undeniable  that 
Peter  urged  it  as  an  argum-.ent,  why  the  Jews  and  their  chil- 
dren should  be  baptized. 

But  that  the  promise  referred  to  in  this  passage  cannot 
refer  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  is  evident  from  the  following 
considerations.  That  promise  had  been  already  fulfilled, 
in  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues,  conferred  on  the  apos- 
tles, for  the  purpose  of  cjualifying  them  for  preaching  the 
gospel  to  the  different  nations  of  the  earth  to  which  they 
were  now  to  be  sent.  And  as  the  "gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  as  well  as  "the  remission  of  sins,"  is  mentioned 
by  Peter,  as  what  the  Jews  whom  he  addressed  were  to 
receive,  upon  their  acknowledging  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah, 
by  being  baptized  in  his  name;  then,  accordirg  to  ^Ir. 
C's  interpretation  of  the  passage,  the  three  thousand  that 
v/ere  baptized  on  that  day,  were  all  endowed  Vv^ith  the 
gift  of  tongues.  But  there  is  not  the  smallest  intimation 
that  this  was  the  case;  nor  is  it  elsewhere  mentioned  that 
this  gift  was  to  be  expected  by  those  who  submitted  to 
Christian  baptism.  The  fair  conclusion  then  is,  that  the 
ordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit,  as  a  spirit  of  sanctifica- 
tion,  are  there  intended,  and  are  therefore  properly  con- 
nected with  the  remission  of  sins. 

Since  then,  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  extra- 
ordinary influences,  cannot  be  intended  in  this  passage, 
it  will  be  naturally  asked,  is  there  any  corresponding 
passage  that  will  lead  us  to  understand  it  as  referring  to 
Gen.  17:  7?  Before  I  ansvv^er  this  question,  I  would  re- 


^23 


mark,  that  the  expression  is  not  apromise,  but  "Me  prom- 
ise^^^  or  a  promise  of  a  peculiar  and  distinguished  kind. 
The  apostle  Paul,  I  think,  answers  the  question,  when 
speaking  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision :  he  says,  ''And 
if  ye  are  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham- s  seed,  according 
to  THE  PROMISE,"  Gal.  3:  29.  And  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Romans  (9:  8.)  he  uses  the  same  phraseology,  and  says; 
they  that  are  the  children  of  the  flesh  are  not  the  children 
of  God;  but  the  cliildren  of  the  promise  are  counted  for 
the  seed.  With  these  passages  in  view,  we  now  see  the 
propriety  and  force  of  Peter's  argument. 

From  the  time  of  Abraham,  the  Jews  had  enjoyed  the 
privilege  of  being  admitted  into  the  church  by  circumci- 
sion, together  with  their  children. — Baptism  w^as  now  to 
take  its  place.  Hence  says  Peter,  "be  baptized  every 
one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
And  lest  they  should  suppose  that  they  themselves  were 
only  entitled  to  be  admitted  into  the  Christian  church  by 
baptism,  and  their  children  left  out,  he  adds,  "the  prom- 
ise is  to  you  and  to  your  children,"  or  they  are,  by  the 
promise  of  God  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  under  the  new  dispensation,  to  which 
they  were  entitled  under  the  old.  But  let  the  promise 
mean  what  it  may,  what  is  the  language  of  Mr.  C's  in- 
terpretation? Tliis:  the  promise  is  to  you,  Jews,  therefore 
be  baptized;  the  promise  is  also  to  your  children,  but  they 
are  not  to  be  baptized;  or  in  other  words,  the  promise  was 
once  to  your  children,  but  it  is  nov/  revoked;  but  by 
whom,  or  at  what  time,  neither  Mr.  C.  nor  any  other  per- 
son can  tell.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  seen  that  it  was 
acknowledged  by  Christ  during  his  life,  and  by  Peter  after 
his  death,  "and  after  Christ  had  fully  instructed  the 
apostles  in  all  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God." 

There  is  another  consideration,  which,  when  duly 
weighed,  perfectly  comports  with,  and  strongly  corrobo- 
rates the  interpretation  I  have  given  to  this  passage.  The 
Jews,  we  know,  from  Paul's  epistles,  were  extremely  ten- 
acious of  their  privileges;  and  if  their  children,  according 
to  the  Baptist  system,  were  now  to  be  cast  out  of  the 
church,  a  fairer  opportunity  of  doing  so,  and  of  obtaining 
their  parent's  consent  to  the  measure,  never  presented 
itself  before  nor  since.    *'They   were   pricked    to  tha 


24 

heart,'^  from  a  sense  of  their  exceeding  great  guilt  in  cru- 
cifying as  an  impostor,  the  Son  of  God,  and  their  expect- 
ed Messiah;  and  were  thereby  prepared  to  submit  to  any 
thing  that  would  remove  the  guilt  of  such  an  atrocious 
crime;  and  they  accordingly  said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest 
of  the  apostles,  ''Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?'* 
Did  Peter  say  to  them  as  Baptists  would  have  said,  and 
do  say;  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Je- 
sus Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins — for  the  promise  is  to 
you,  but  not  to  your  children?  No — but  he  says,  'Hhe 
promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children;  and  to  all  that  are 
afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

But  whom  does  the  apostle  mean  by  the  "afar  off,"  in 
tliis  passage?  Mr.  C.  tells  us  that  it  means  what  Joel  in 
his  prophecy  styles  the  ''remnant  whom  the  Lord  shall 
call."  I  confess  that  I  was  amazed  when  I  read  this,  as 
it  came  from  %man  who  in  his  book  talks  about  '  'quacks 
in  theology,"  and  as  I  did  ndt think  there  was  any  person 
who  read  the  Bible,  and  was  acquainted  with  its  phraseol- 
ogy, but  knew,  that  the  remnant  is  usually,  if  notunifonn- 
ly,  applied  to  that  portion  of  the  Jcavs  who  believed  in 
Christ,  and  who  should  be  saved  from  the  direful  calami- 
ties awaiting  that  nation,  and  portrayed  by  Joel  in  that 
prophecy  in  the  strongest  and  most  appaling  colours. 
But  a  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  already  ad- 
duced, tells  us  that  the  words  "afar  off,"  designate  the 
Gentile  nations:  "but  ye  who  sometime  w^ere  afar  off,  are 
made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ. " — Hence  then,  the  plain 
and  unsophisticated  meaning  of  the  passage  is;  that  not 
only  the  Jews,  in  consequence  of  the  promise  of  God  in 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  were  to  be  introduced,  they 
and  their  children,  into  tlie  church,  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation, but  the  Gentiles  also,  with  their  children,  when 
they  should  be  called  by  the  ministration  of  the  gospel,  to 
the  knowledge  of  Clmst,  and  thereby  ingrafted  into  the 
good  olive  tree. 

As  the  passage  now  under  consideration  so  fully  estab- 
lishes the  right  of  infants,  whose  parents  are  church  mem- 
bers, to  baptism;  every  art  that  ingenuity  and  sophistry 
could  invent,  has  therefore  been  employed  to  lessen  its 
force.  Hence  then  Baptist  writers  tell  us,  that  the  word 
"children"  in  scripture  language  sometimes  means  young 
persons  arrived  to  maturity,  and  Mr.  C.  in  his  book  ap- 


25 


plies  it  to  the  joimg  men  and  maidens  mentioned  in  Jo- 
el's  prophecy.  Be  it  so, — it  will  not  be  denied  that  it  is 
also  applied  to  minors  and  infants,  and  this  is  enough  for 
the  Pedobaptist  argument.  And  admitting  that  the  word 
in  tills  passage  means  young  men  and  women  aiTived  to 
ti^aturity,  what  would  then  be  the  scope  of  the  apostle's 
argument.^  This:  The  promise  is  to  you,  Jews,  and  to 
your  cliildren?  but  not  to  your  children  while  under  your 
direction  and  discipline,  but  to  your  children  when  arrived 
to  maturity,  and  not  under  your  direction,  and  when  God 
shall  call  them  by  his  gospel  to  the  knowledge  of  salvation 
by  Christ.  I  need  not  tell  you  ^w  -foolishly  this  inter- 
pretation makes  the  apostle  speak;  for  this  is  no  more  than 
could  be  said  to  the  niost  idolatrous  Gentile.  Such  is 
the  absurdity  of  the  Baptist  interpretation  of  this  impor- 
tant passage:  and  who  would  have  thought  it,  or  rather, 
who  would  not  have  thought  i^,  the  intei-pj^tation  of  the 
man  who  tells  us,  that  on  tke  subject  of  baptism  he  "chal- 
lenges  all  Christendom,  ^l       ^ 

Aware  how  much  tliis  important  passage  stands  in  the 
way  of  the  Baptist  system,  Mr.  C.  tells  us  with  an  air  of 
triumph,  in  No.  3  of  the  appendix  to  his  book,  that  by 
deep  research  into  chronology,  he  has  at  length  found  out 
what  will  not  only  destroy  the  strong  argument  for  infant 
baptism  derived  from  it,  but  what  will  '^tumble  the  whole 
system  of  Pedobaptists  to  the  ground."  And  what  is  it,^ 
— That  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  on  which  the  forego- 
ing argument  is  founded,  was  made  thirty  years  after  '*the 
covenant  of  God  in  Christ;"  and  that  it  is  the  covenant  of 
God  in  Chi'ist,  and  not  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  that 
t1ie  apostle  alludes  to  in  liis  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and 
styles  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  Abraham: — or,  in 
other  words,  that  Pedobaptists  argue  from  a  wrong  cove- 
naiut,  and  consequently  from  wrong  premises. 

It  is  very  fortunate,  however,  for  the  devoted  Pedobap- 
tists, that  these  two  covenants  of  Mr.  C's  are  one  and  the 
same;  and  very  unfortunate  for  him  that  they  are  so,  as  he 
has  thereby  lost  all  the  honour  he  expected  from  such  a  no- 
table discovery.  As  the  church  of  Rome  has  thrown  out 
the  second  commandment,  because  it  forbids  the  making 
and  worsliipping  of  graven  images,  and  split  the  tentli  in- 
to two,  to  make  up  the  number;  so  Mr.  C.  for  the  sake  of 
his  system,  has  thrown  out  of  t)ie  catalogue  of  his  cove- 
4 


£6 

nants  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  15th  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis, as  I  have  already  observed,  and  split  the  covenant 
confirmed  of  God  in  Christ,  into  two,  in  order  to  make 
up  his  number,  or  perhaps,  because  that  number  is  consid- 
ered bj  some  a  number  of  perfection. 

Now,  that  what  is  called  the  covenant  of  God  in  Christ 
is  the  same  with  what  is  called  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion, is  evident,  from  the  consideration  that  the  provisions 
and  object  of  both  are  the  same.  It  was  first  intimated  to 
Abraham  in  the  12th  chapter  of  Genesis: — "Now  the 
Lord  had  said  unto  Abraham,  Get  thee  out  of  thj  country, 
and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto'  a 
land  that  I  'svill  shew  thee;  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great 
nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee  and  make  thy  name  great,  and 
thou  shalt  be  a  blessing,  and  in  thee  shall  all  the  families 
of  the  earth  be  blessed.  That  it  is  this  covenant  the  apos- 
tle alludes  to  in  the  Sd  chapter  to  the  Galatians,  is  evi- 
dent, from  his  quoting«one  of  its  blessings  with  a  small 
verbal  variation,  very  common  with  New  Testament  win- 
ters, wben  quoting  the  Old :  and  that  it  is  the  same  that  he 
alludes  to  in  the  4th  chapter  to  the  Romans,  is  also  evi- 
dent from  his  quoting  another  of  its  blessings  with  a  small 
variation  also.  In  the  former  epistle  and  chapter,  are 
these  words — "In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessedj"  the 
same  as  "In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  In  the  latter  epistle  and  chapter  he  has  these 
words — "I  have  nmde  thee  a  father  of  many  nations;" 
equivalent  to  "I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation."  And 
not  only  is  this  the  case,  but  the  very  w^ords  of  Jehovah 
himself,  in  the  17th  chapter,  is  a  proof,  that  the  covenant 
there  mentioned  was  not  a  new  covenant,  but  a  covenant 
already  made.  *^As  for  me,  (saith  God)  my  covenant  is 
9vith  theep^  which  plainly  alludes  to  a  covenant  already 
intimated;  "and  I  will  establish  any  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,"  or  confirm  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
which  he  did  at  that  time  by  the  seal  of  circumcision. 

From  these  considerations  it  is  evident  that  the  cove- 
nant of  God  in  Christ,  and  the  covenant  of  circumcision, 
are  one  and  the  same.  It  was  styled  by  Paul  "the  cove- 
nant confirmed  of  God  in  Christ  (eis  Christon)  because  it 
had  relation  to  Christ  and  his  church;  and  it  is  called  by 
Stephen  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  because  it  was  con- 
firmed by  that  rite  thirty  years  after  it  was  made— and 


lliereiore  the  Pedobaptist  sjsteni  still  stands  firm,  notwith- 
standing Mr.  C's  notable  discovery  that  was  "to  tumble 
it  to  the  ground."  You  will  have  perceived,  however, 
tliat  had  Mr.  C's  great  chronological  discovery,  so  big  with 
mischief  to  the  Pedobaptist  system,  been  founded  on  fact, 
it  could  not  have  affected  my  view  of  the  subject,  as  I  da 
not  consider  that  covenant  to  be  the  covenant  of  grace.* 

But  to  tlie  argument  drawn  from  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision in  ftivour  of  infant  baptism,  Mr.  C.  replies,  that 
circtiincisioii  and  baptism  are  positive  institutes^  ''and  in 
positive  institutes  we  are  not  authorized  to  reason,  what 
we  sliould  do,  but  implicitly  to  obeyj  and  was  there  ever  a 
positive  ordinance  or  institution  founded  solely  upon  in- 
ference or  reason — and  can  there  be  a  positive  institution 
without  a  positiv  e  precept  or  precedent  authorizing  it— and 
a  limited  commission  implies  a  proliibition  of  such  things 
as  are  not  contained  in  itj  and  positive  laws  imply  their 
ne<^aiive3, " 

The  amount  and  meaning  of  all  this  is — 'Hhat  there  is 
no  such  precept  or  command  in  the  scriptures  as  that  in- 
fants sha,ll  be  baptized,"  or  precedent  or  example  that 
they  were:  and  hence  he  infers  that  they  are  not  entitled 
to  that  privilege.  When  called  upon  by  Mr.  W.  to  pro- 
duce a  positive  precept  for  admitting  believing  w^omen  to 
the  ordinance  of  the  supper,  or  precedent  that  they  v/ere 
admitted — w^hat  does  he  do.^ — Does  he  dii-ect  to  the  chap- 
ter and  verse  that  says  that  believing  women  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  table,  or  precedent  that  they  were? 
■ — No — but  he  tells  us  in  his  usual  style,  a  style  sui  generis, 

*TIiat  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  not  the  covenant  of 
grace,  is  apparent  from  Rom.  3:  1,  2,  already  adduced  for  another 
purpose.  1  shall  transcribe  the  passag-e  again.  *'What  advan- 
tag-e  hath  the  Jew?  or  what  profit  is  there  of  cii'cumcision?  much 
every  way;  cMefly,  because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the 
oracles  of  God."  Here  "the  oracles  of  God"  are  said  to  be  the 
cAief  advantage  which  those  who  were  interested  in  that  covenant 
by  circumcision,  derived  from  it,  and  until  it  is  proved  that  the 
words  "the  oracles  of  God"  imply  in  them  justification,  sanctifi- 
cation  and  eternal  life,  this  single  passage  settles  the  point  at 
once.  If  it  is  said  that  they  are  the  appointed  means  for  interest- 
ing in  those  all-important  blessings — that  is  the  very  thing  I  con- 
tend for,  but  the  means  are  not  the  end,  nor  the  end  the  means. 
As  I  understand  that  Mr.  W.  intends  to  combat  my  opinion  on 
tills  subject,  it  is  expected  that  he  will  not  overlook  this  passage. 


28 

'•that  it  is  a  pitiful  and  pcor  come-off,"  "tlie  most  puerite 
and  childish  reiort  that  he  had  ever  heard  used  by  adults 
that  had  any  kncv.ledge  of  words  and' things.*'  Then  he 
tells  us  that  the  Lord's  supper  was  appointed  for  the 
disciples  of  Christy  but  women  are  styled  disciples;  there- 
fore they  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  table  of  the  Lord.  He 
has  indeed  fully  proved  the  point: — but  how.^ — was  it  by 
producing  his  positive  precept  or  precedent?  No — for 
there  is  no  such  precept  or  precedent,  but  by  reasoning  and 
inference;  to  the  destruction  of  his  own  rule,  which  he  so 
frequently  and  so  sti^enuously  inculcates,  and  which  if 
acted  upon  would  exclude  every  female,  however  pious, 
from  the  Lord's  table,  as  the  Lord's  supper  is  as  much  a 
positive  institute  as  baptism.  With  respect  to  this  rule 
contained  in  the  above  quotations,  and  which  is  to  be  ap- 
plied to  infants,  but  not  at  ail  to  v»-omeD,  he  is  only  the 
echo  of  Mr.  Booth,  and  from  the  just  severity,  with  vvhich 
Peter  Edwards,  whom  he  very  modestly  styles  a  sophist, 
had  exposed  it,  I  had  expected  that  no  man  of  common 
sense  and  modesty  v.ould  have  had  the  hardihood  to  bring 
it  forward  again;  and  its  re-appearance  in  Jilr.  C's  book  is 
a  proof  to  what  miserable  shifts  he  is  reduced  to  support 
his  system. 

If  it  is  asked  how  far  we  may  safely  reason  with  res- 
pect to  positive  institutes? — So  far  I  think,  and  no  farther. 
When  the  scriptures  tell  us  that  one  positive  institute  is 
come  in  the  room  of  another,  then  we  may  safely  infer, 
that  the  latter  is  to  be  applied  to  the  same  subjects  as 
were  embraced  by  the  former,  unless  positively  prohibited, 
and  to  as  many  more  as  m.ay  be  expressly  mentioned  or 
implied.  We  have  seen  that  the  church  of  God  is  one 
and  indivisible — that  male  infants  were  introduced  into 
it  by  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  under  the  Abrahamic 
dispensation — that  their  membership  instead  of  being  re- 
voked, was  acknowledged  by  Christ  in  the  most  explicit 
term.s — that  baptism  is  now  the  initiating  ordinance — and 
being  told  that  there  is  "neither  male  nor  female  in  Christ 
Jesus,"  or  no  sextual  distinction  of  privileges  under  the 
present  dispensation;  we  may  hence  safely  infer,  that  fe- 
male as  well  as  male  infants  are  to  be  baptized,  when 
their  parents  are  members  of  the  church,  and  in  good 
standing.  In  this  manner  the  apostle  Peter  reasoned  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost:  and  in  this  manner  may  we  safely 


29 

reason  on  every  passage  tliat  has  a  reference  to  the  point.* 
Mr.  C.  has  another  argument  against  infant  baptism, 
which  he  pronounces  in  the  31st  page  and  elsewhere  to  be 
unanswerable,  and  as  settling  the  point  at  once.  It  a- 
mounts  to  this.  The  scripture  direction  respecting  bap- 
tism is,  believe  and  be  baptized;  but  infants  are  not  capa- 
ble of  believing,  therefore  they  are  not  to  be  baptized.  A 
syllogism  constructed  on  this  plan  will  prove,  that  all  in- 
fants shall  be  damned.  For  instance;  the  scriptures  tell 
us,  that  he  that  believeth  shall  be  saved:  and  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned:  but  infants  are  not  capable 
of  believing,  therefore  they  shall  be  damned.    It  may  an- 

*It  has  been  objected,  that  cu-cumcision  could  not  have  been- 
desig-ned  as  a  mode  of  initiation  into  the  church,  because  it 
was  appointed  for  the  males  only.  To  this  it  has  been  replied, 
that  in  all  g-ood  constitutions  and  governments,  the  civil  and  reli- 
g-ious  privileg-es  of  females,  are  implied,  and  involved  in  those  of 
their  fathers  or  husbands;  and  therefore  it  was  not  necessary  to 
mention  their  church  membership,  specifically.  There  is  truth 
and  force  in  the  observation;  and  I  think,  that  of  itself  it  is  a  suffi- 
cient answer  to  the  objection.  But  besides  this,  it  is  apparent  to 
myself,  that  a  church  of  God  as  the  medium  of  redemption,  was 
implied,  and  involved  in  the  first  promise — "that  the  seed  of  the 
woman  should  bruize  the  serpent's  head;"  and  as  sacrifices  were 
offered  up  to  Jehovah  in  consequence  of  this  promise;  and  as 
both  males  and  females  eat  of  those  sacrifices;  and  their  eating"  of 
them  implied  a  trust  in  the  promise,  that  "the  seed  of  the  woman" 
would  in  due  time  come  into  the  world  as  a  Redeemer;  then,  their 
eating*  of  those  sacrifices,  amongst  other  purposes,  appears  to 
have  been  the  appointed  mean  of  induction  into  the  church  under 
the  patriarchal  dispensation  of  grace.  The  mode  of  initiation  for 
the  males  was  indeed  chang'ed  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  for  wise 
pm'poses;  but  the  primitive  mode  continued  unchang-ed  in  relation 
to  females  until  the  coming'  of  the  Redeemer,  who  bruised  the 
head  of  the  old  serpent  by  the  sacrifice  of  liimself.  And  as  all  the 
sacrifices  appointed  both  under  the  Patriarchal  and  Jewish  dis- 
pensations, were,  typical  of  this  great  sacrifice,  they,  with  every 
other  Jewish  ordinance,  consequently  ceased  at  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  could  no  longer  answer  the  purpose  of  a  mean  of  ini- 
tiation into  the  church  for  females:  baptism  was  therefore  ap- 
pointed as  a  mean  of  induction  for  both  males  and  females;  "for 
in  Christ  Jesus,  says  the  apostle,  there  is  neither  male  nor  fe- 
male." Either  of  the  foregoing  considerations  and  facts,  is,  in 
my  opinion,  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  objection;  and  the  fore- 
going view  of  the  origin,  the  design,  and  the  Onexess  of  the 
church  may  remove  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  circumstance, 
that  males  Only,  were  introduced  into  the  church  by  circumcision. 

*4 


30 

swer  every  purpose  at  present  just  to  observe,  that  when 
the  scriptures  say  that  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  dam- 
nedj  and  when  they  speak  of  faith  as  a  pre-requisite  for 
baptism,  they  speak  of  adults  only,  and  to  include  infants 
in  such  passages  betrays  an  unpardonable  ignorance  in 
any  man  who  has  pretensions  to  a  knowledge  of  letters,  or 
a  disposition  to  impose  upon  the  ignorant  by  a  shameless 
sophistry. 

The  same  inexcusable  ignorance  or  unblushing  sophis- 
try is  also  manifested,  in  his  answer  to  the  argument  ad- 
duced by  Mr.  W.  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  from  the 
baptisms  of  the  houses  of  Cornelius,  ofLydia,  of  the  jailer, 
and  of  Stephanas.  Mr.  W.  presumed  that  there  were  in- 
fants in  some  of  these  houses;  but  Mr.  C.  in  pages  72,  73, 
confidently  affirms  there  were  none.  As  he  has  kindly 
constructed  syllogisms,  not  only  for  Papists,  and  Episco- 
palians, but  for  Presbyterians  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
I  shall  therefore  throw  his  answers  and  proofs  into  the 
form  of  syllogisms,  both  for  brevity's  sake,  and  that  the 
reader  may  at  one  glance  see  them  just  as  they  are — in  all 
their  shameful  nakedness.  Cornelius  was  a  devout  man 
and  feared  God,  with  all  his  house — Cornelius  called  to- 
gether his  kinsmen  and  near  friends — Peter  preached  to 
them  all — the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  that  heard  the 
word,  and  they  were  all  baptized :  but  infants  are  incapa- 
ble of  being  devout,  and  of  fearing  God,  or  of  hearing 
preaching  so  as  to  understand  it;  therefore,  there  were  no 
infants  in  the  house  of  Cornelius.  The  Lord  opened  the 
heart  of  Lydia;  and  she  believed  and  was  baptized,  and 
her  house — Paul  and  Silas  visited  her  family,  and  when 
they  had  seen  the  brethren,  and  comforted  them,  tliey  de- 
parted: but  infants  are  incapable  of  believing  and  being 
comforted;  therefore,  there  were  no  infants  in  the  house  of 
Lydia.  Paul  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  jailer, 
and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,  and  the  jailer  believed  in 
God,  with  all  his  house:  but  infants  are  incapable  of  hear- 
ing the  word  of  the  Lord  so  as  to  understand  it,  or  of  re- 
joicing from  the  same  cause  that  the  jailer  did;  therefore, 
there  were  ho  infants  in  the  house  of  the  jailer.  The 
house  of  Stephanas  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of 
the  saints:  but  infants  are  incapable  of  addicting  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints;  therefore,  there  wer^ 
no  infants  in  the  house  of  Stephanas. 


31 

As  every  person  of  good  common  sense  is  a  good  logician, 
though  not  instructed  in  the  systematic  logic  of  the  schools, 
— every  such  reader  will  now  easily  see  wherein  the  so- 
phistry of  the  foregoing  syllogisms,  fairly  consti-ucted  from 
his  answers,  lies.  He  will  perceive  that  although  the 
word  of  God  frequently  speaks  of  infants  and  their  privi- 
leges, when  children  of  believing  parents;  yet  the  scrip- 
tures are  not  addressed  to  them  as  infants,  but  to  adults 
capable  of  hearing  or  reading,  and  of  understanding  what 
they  hear  orreadj  andthere^re  to  include  them  in  warn- 
ings, exhortations  or  promises  addressed  to  adults,  or  to 
class  them  with  those  who  are  subjects  of  duties,  is  sophis- 
tical in  the  highest  degree;  and  I  am  persuaded  that  he 
will  be  constrained  to  say,  there  must  be  something  radi- 
cally unsound  in  that  system  that  has  recourse  to  such 
shameful  sophistry  to  support  it. 

It  is  true,  that  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  deduced 
from  the  baptism  of  those  houses,  is  only  presumptive;  but 
it  is  a  presumption  of  the  strongest  kind;  for  as  the  con- 
version of  the  heads  of  those  families  is  only  mentioned, 
the  inference  I  think  is  just,  that  the  houses  were  bapti- 
zed on  account  of  the  faith  of  the  parents:  and  whenever  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  meets  with  a  heathen  or  infidel  head 
of  a  fEHtiily,  brought  over  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  desi- 
rous to  be  baptized,  he  is  warranted  by  the  example  of 
the  apostles,  "to baptize  liim  and  all  his  straightway." 

I  would  here  farther  remark,  that  Mr.  C.  according  to 
his  own  account,  acted  fully  as  disingenuously  and  sophis- 
tically,  with  respect  to  the  argument  in  favour  of  infant 
baptism  drawn  from  the  testimonies  of  the  ancient  fathers 
of  the  church,  as  in  the  instances  now  reviewed.  Mr.  W. 
he  tells  us,  produced  extracts  from  the  writings  of  Justin 
Martyi',  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Augustine, 
Jerome,  and  Chrysostom,  who  filled  in  the  church  a  space 
of  time  from  the  beginning  of  the  2d  to  the  4th  century  of 
the  Christian  era;  and  all  of  whom  mention  more  or  less, 
that  infant  baptism  was  practised  in  their  day.  And  how 
does  Mr.  C.  meet  this  strong  presumptive  argument.^ 
These  fathers  held  some  errors — and  he  consumes  twelve 
pages  of  his  book  in  pointing  out  those  errors,  and  portray- 
ing them  in  the  strongest  colours;  with  the  evident  design 
of  making  the  impression  that  such  dotards  and  errorists 
wee  not  worthy  of  the  least  attention.     But  what  if  those 


fathers  held  some  errors  and  fanciful  theories?  Does  it  fol- 
low that  they  are  not  competent  and  credible  witnesses  for 
facts  that  happened  in  their  dav?  and  facts  too  in  which 
they  themselves  were  engaged— the  baptizing  of  infants; 
and  it  is  as  witnesses  for  this  fact,  and  not  as  standards  of 
orthodoxy,  that  Pedobaptist  writers  bring  forward  their 
testimony. 

I  shall  close  this  letter  by  obviating  another  objection 
to  infant  baptism,  and  indeed  the  only  one  that  ever  ap- 
peared to  me  to  deserve  a  serious  answer.  As  infants  are 
incapable  of  knowing  what  is  done  to  them  when  they  are 
baptized,  it  is  asked — '''Of  what  use  can  it  be  to  them?" 
Mr.  C.  frequently  brings  forward  the  objection,  and  with 
an  air  of  ridicule  bordering  on  rancorous  malevolence:  and 
frequently  too  out  of  place;  for  when  the  question  was 
about  their  right  to  baptism,  bis  usual  phraseology  is — 
* 'infant  sprinkling — ^infant  sprinkling" — yea,  the  first 
words  of  the  title  page  of  his  book  is  "infant  sprinkling," 
as  if  that  and  nothing  else  had  been  the  subject  of  debate. 

It  might  be  enough  to  silence  such  objectors  by  saying, 
it  is  of  divine  appointment,  "and  who  art  thou,  O  man, 
v\'ho  repliest  against  God?"  And  it  can  be  of  as  much  use 
now  as  circumcision  of  old.  But  besides  this;  we  think 
we  can  see  in  the  institution  a  gracious  provision  for  train- 
ing up  the  rising  generation  for  the  Lord.  By  baptism 
they  are  taken  out  of  the  visible  kingdom  of  Satan,  in 
which  air  are  born,  as  the  children  of  a  degenerate  parent, 
and  PLANTED  in  the  vineyard,  or  the  church  of  God,  the 
usual  birth-place  of  the  children  of  his  grace,  and  become 
entitled,  by  the  divine  promise,  to  what  Christ  calls  "dig- 
ging about  and  dunging;"  or  such  instruction  by  the  word 
and  Spirit,  tlu-ough  the  instrumentality  of  their  parents, 
and  of  the  church,  as  is  calculated  to  make  them  "trees  of 
righteousness,  the  planting  of  the  Lord,  that  he  might  be 
glorified."  And  as  God  usually  works  by  means  or  sec- 
ond causes  in  the  kingdom  of  grace,  as  well  as  in  the  king- 
dom of  nature;  may  we  not  venture  to  say  that  baptism 
was  also  appointed  as  a  means  of  regeneration  for  the  in- 
fants of  his  people  dying  in  infancy,  and  whom  he  design- 
ed to  save?  If  it  is  not  a  means  for  this  purpose,  then 
there  are  no  means.  ^Vliat  God  designs  to  do  with  all 
infants  dying  in  infancy,  he  has  not  told  us,  and  to  decide 
peremptorily  on  tlie  subject  belongs  not  to  man — the  Judge 


of  all  the  earth  will  not  do  them  any  -svrong^  but  this  we 
know,  that  he  has  promised  to  sanctify  and  save  some  of 
the  children  of  his  people.  '"Thus  sailh  the  Lord  that 
made  thee,  and  formed  thee  from  the  v>'omb,  which  will 
help  thee:  fear  not,  O  Jacob,  my  servant,  and  thou  Jes- 
huran,  whom  I  have  chosen.  For  I  will  pour  water  on  him 
that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  on  the  dry  ground.  I  will  pour 
my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed ;  and  my  blessing  upon  thy  oft^- 
spring;  and  they  shall  spring  up  as  among  the  grass,  and 
as  willows  by  the  water  courses.'' 

And  now  Vvhat  is  the  comparative,  practical  operation 
and  effect  of  the  two  systems?  The  Baptists  take  into  the 
church  baptized  adults  only,  and  none  others  are  consider- 
ed under  her  direction  and  control;  and  hence  the  compar- 
atively slow  progress  of  Christianity  in  the  East,  under 
their  missionaries,  zealous  and  indefatigable  as  they  are| 
while  upon  the  Pedobaptist  system,  sanctioned  by  the  ex- 
ample of  the  apostles,  of  taking  under  her  wings  those  hou- 
ses, the  heads  of  which  profess  the  Christian  faith,  by  be- 
ing baptized,  the  inhabitants  of  Otaheite,  of  Eimeo,  and  of 
other  adjacent  islands  in  the  Pacific  ocean,  may  be  said, 
according  to  the  prophecy,  "to  be  born  in  a  day."  The 
Baptists  leave  their  children  in  the  visible  kingdom  of 
'darkness,  where  there  is  no  promise  nor  provision  for  their 
regenei'ation;  and  if  a  gracious  and  sovereign  God  regen- 
erates them,  well  and  good:  But  Pedobaptists  consider  it 
their  duty  and  privilege  to  plant  their  children  by  baptism 
in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord;  hoping,  that  in  his  own  time, 
and  according  to  his  own  promise,  he  will  '-pour  out  his 
Spirit  on  their  seed,  and  his  blessing  upon  their  offspring," 
"diat  they  may  be  trees  of  righteousness,  the  planting  of 
the  Lord,  that  his  name  may  be  glorified.*'  Those  Bap- 
tists who  have  embraced  the  whole  of  Mr.  C's  system,  de- 
grade the  Old  Testament  dispensation  of  grace,  by  denying 
that  there  was  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jev/ish  nation;  and 
consequently  m.ust  consider  the  ordinptnces  appointed  by 
Jehovah,  from  the  time  of  Abraham  to  the  completion  of 
the  tem.ple  service,  at  best,  as  an  unmeaning  inefficient 
mummery;  but  Pedobaptists  consider  them  as  unequivocal 
proofs  of  the  existence  of  a  church  amongst  that  people, 
as  ordinances  ^ 'for  the  service  of  GocP^  are  involved  in  the 
very  idea  of  a  church,  and  belong  to  her  essence;  and  also 


34 

as  precious  means  of  grace  suited  to  that  day^  and  gi-aci- 
oiislj  intended  for  interesting  them  in  the  Redeemer's 
righteousness.  From  a  vievf  of  the  whole  of  this  system^ 
as  a  fitlier  of  a  familj,  and  with  the  Bible  before  me,  I 
must  say  of  such  Baptists  and  their  system,  »'0  my  sou], 
come  not  thou  into  their  secret^  unto  their  'assembly' 
mine  honour  be  not  united."  I  say  this  only  of  those 
Baptists  who  have  embraced  the  whole  of  Mr.  C'ssystem| 
for  there  are  Baptists  whom  I  esteem  for  their  piety  and 
intelligence,  and  who,  I  am  persuaded,  abhor  some  of  his- 
principles  as  much  as  I  do,  I  shali  resume  the  subject  in 
my  next  letter. 


LETTER  IL 

AS  the  design  of  a  Magazine  is  to  furnish  tlie  public 
with  diSerent  essays  on  difterent  iisefal  subjects,  it  cannot 
therefore  admit  of  any  publication  of  any  considerable 
length.  I  was  guided  by  tliis  consideration  when  I  wrote 
the  foregoing  letter  for  the  Presbyterian  Magazine,  and  I 
accordingly  selected  for  review  only  those  passages  from 
the  word  of  God,  that  speak,  as  we  think,  of  infant  bap- 
tism, and  were  brought  ior\^  ard  in  the  debate,  and  which 
appeared  to  have  most  bearing  on  the  point  at  issue,  '.rhis 
was  the  reason  that  I  passed  over  the  argument  for  infant 
]>aptism  deduced  from  the  account  we  have  in  the  New 
Testament  of  different  families  being  baptized  at  different 
times,  with  barely  noticing  what  I  deemed  sophistical 
reasoning  on  that  subject  by  Mr.  C.  As  I  am  not  now  so 
circumscribed,  I  shall  resume  that  point,  and  also  exam- 
ine one  or  tvv^o  other  passages  introduced  by  Mr.  C.  in  the 
appendix  to  his  book^  and  these  will  embrace  all  he  has 
said  on  the  subject. 

I  would  therefore  observe  that  the  Greek  words  Oikos 
and  Oikia,  which  literally  signify  a  liouse  or  dwelling  place, 
are  used  metaphorically  both  in  the  Septuagint"^  of  the  Old, 
and  in  the  Greek  New  Testament  to  denote  the  inhabi- 
tants, with  this  difference,  that  Oikia  signifies  a  man's 
liousehold  or  servants,  but  Oikos  is  confined  to  the  chil- 
dren separate  from  the  parents:  examples  of  which  shall 
be  adduced  in  the  proper  place.  There  may  be  instances 
"where  these  words  are  used  interchangeably,  perhaps 
through  the  carelessness  of  transcribers;  but  every  person 
who  will  take  the  trouble  of  examining  the  matter  will  find 

*  It  may  be  necessary  for  the  sake  of  some  readers  to  obser^-e, 
that  by  the  ^'Septuaglnt"  is  meant  a  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  was  written  in  Hebrew,  into  the  Greek  language 
■about  150  years  before  Christ.  It  is  this  translation  that  is  usually 
referred  to  by  Christ  and  the  apostles.  We  refer  to  it  only  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  true  meaning  of  some  words  in 
tlie  Greek  Testament,  as  many  of  the  principal  words  are  evident- 
ly borrowed  from  it;  nor  mdeed  without  that  translation,  could  the 
real  meaning  of  them  be  clearly  ascertained,  as  we  shall  have  oc- 
casion hereafter  to  shew. 


that  the  distinction  is  accuratelj  observed  in  the  Nev\ 
Testament. 

The  reason  why  Oikos  is  used  to  denote  the  children  of 
the  owner  of  a  household  seems  to  be  this — that  as  a  house 
or  dwelling  place  is  built  up  by  degrees,  and  by  succes- 
sive actSj  so  a  man's  family  is  built  up  by  degrees,  by 
cliildren  born  to  him  in  suctession.  In  this  sense  it  is 
used  repeatedly  in  2  Sam.  7:  25 — 29.  "And  now  0  Lord 
God,  the  v,'ord  which  thou  hast  spoken  concerning  thy 
servant,  and  concerning  his  house  (Oikoii)  establish  it  for- 
ever, and  do  as  thou  hast  said. — And  let  the  house  (Oi- 
kos) of  thy  servant  David  be  established  before  tiiee.  For 
thou,  O  Lord  of  hosts,  God  of  Israel,  hast  revealed  thy- 
self to  thy  servant,  saying,  I  will  build  thee  an  house, 
(Oikon,) — Therefore  let  it  please  thee  to  bless  the  house 
(Oikon)  of  thy  servant."  The  apostle  Peter  speaking  of 
believers  as  the  children,  and  more  immediate  family  of 
God  here  below,  uses  the  word  in  the  same  sense,  and  as- 
signs the  same  reason  respecting  the  use  and  propriety  of 
the  metaphor.  Ye  also  as  living  stones  are  built  up  a  spi- 
ritual house  (Oikos)  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  accept- 
able to  God  through  Jesus  Christ.  1  Epistle,  2:  8. 

That  the  word  House  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  to 
designate  cliildren  separate  from  their  parent  or  parents, 
is  evident  not  only  from  the  foregoing,  but  the  following 
examples.  '^Then  went  king  David  in,  and  sat  before  the 
Lord,  and  he  said,  who  am  I,  O  Lord,  and  what  is  my 
house  (Oikos)  that  thou  hast  brought  me  hither?"  2  Sam. 
7:  18. — "And  thus  saith  the  Lord,  behold  I  will  raise  up 
evil  against  thee  [David]  out  of  thine  own  house"  (Oi- 
kou.)  2  Sam.  13:  11.  The  same  phraseology  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament.  Hence  then  we  read  of  Cornelius 
and  his  house^  of  Lydia  and  her  house,  of  the  Jailer  and 
his  house,  and  of  Stephanas  and  his  house,  in  all  of  which 
Oikos  and  not  Oikia  is  used.  It  is  true  indeed,  that  the 
English  translators  have  sometimes  rendered  both  words 
house,  jand  sometimes  household;  but  as  I  have  already 
observed,  the  distinction  is  generally  obser\'ed  with  accu- 
racy; and  certainly  it  would  have  been  better  to  have  uni- 
formly rendered  Oikos,  house,  and  Oikia,  household,  as 
they  have  done  in  Phil.  4:  22.  "All  the  saints  salute  you, 
chiefly  those  that  are  of  Csesar's  household;"  (Oikias)  and 
every  one  knows  that  it  must  have  been  Caesar's  servants, 
and  not  his  children  that  are  meant  in  that  passage. 


3r 

Having  thus  shewn  that  the  word  house  is  used  in  both 
the  Old,  and  the  New  Testament  to  denote  children  sepa- 
rate  from  their  parents;  I  would  now  observe,  that  it  is 
used  to  denote  little  children  as  a  part  of  a  house  or  family. 
Thus  in  numbers  16:  27.  It  is  said  that  Dathan  and  Abi- 
ram  came  out,  and  stood  in  the  door  of  their  tents,  and 
their  wives,  and  their  sons,  and  their  little  children. 
Verse  32:  And  it  (;3,me  to  pass  that  the  earth  opened  her 
mouth,  and  swallowed  them  up  and  their  houses,  (Oikous) 
— swallowed  up  their  little  children  as  part  of  their  hou- 
ses, as  well  as  their  wives,  their  sons,  and  themselves. 
And  not  only  is  this  the  case,  but  that  it  is  also  used  to 
signify  infants  exclusively,  is  apparent  from  the  follow- 
ing examples.  According  to  a  law  of  the  Jewish  theo- 
cracy, if  a  married  man  died  childless,  then  his  unmarried 
brother,  and  if  he  had  no  unmarried  brother,  then  the  next 
of  kin  was  required  to  marry  his  widowj  and  if  he  refused, 
*'then,  shall  his  brother's  wife  loose  his  shoe  from  oiF  his 
foot,  and  spit  in  his  face,  and  say,  so  shall  it  be  done  to 
that  man  who  will  not  build  up  liis  brother's  house,^^  (Oi- 
kon.)  Deut.  25:  9.  But  how  was  his  brother's  house  to 
be  built  up? — By  the  surviving  brother  marrying  his  de- 
ceased brother's  widow,  and  by  infants  born  to  him  by  herj^ 
but  which  were  to  be  esteemed  the  children  of  the  deceas- 
ed brother.  The  marriage  of  Ruth  to  Boaz  was  in  conse- 
quence of  this  law:  and  we  are  accordingly  told  that  when 
he  had  espoused  her,  all  the  people  that  were  in  the  gate, 
and  the  elders  said  we  are  witnesses.  "The  Lord  make 
the  woman  that  is  to  come  into  thine  house,  or  dwelling 
place,  like  Rachel,  and  like  Leah,  which  two  did  build  up 
the  house  (Oikon)  of  Israel. — And  let  thy  house  be  like 
the  house  (Oikos)  of  Phares  which  Tamar  bare  unto  Judah 
of  the  seed  which  the  Lord  will  give  thee  of  this  young  wo- 
man." Ruth  4:  12.  I  would  again  ask  how  was  the 
house  of  Israel  built  up  by  Rachel  and  by  Leah? — certainly 
by  the  infants  brought  forth  by  them  from  time  to  time. 
And  how  was  the  house  of  Boaz  to  become  like  the,  house 
of  Phares,  but  by  infants  to  be  born  to  him  by  Ruth,  and 
which  are  styled  "tlie  seed  of  this  young  woman?"  Many 
other  examples  of  the  word  house  being  used  to  denote 
little  children,  and  infants  exclusively,  might  be  adduced, 
but  I  shall  mention  only  another  in  the  113  th  Psalm,  9th 
verse.  ''He  maketh  the  ban^en  woman  to  keep  house^ 
5 


38 

(Oiko)  and  to  be  the  joyful  mother  of  children."  In  this 
passage,  every  reader  will  see  that  the  barren  woman's 
heart  was  to  be  made  glad  by  infants  to  be  given  to  her  by 
the  Lord,  and  who  were  to  constitute  what  is  called  her 
^'hoitse^^  or  family. 

Now  to  apply  the  metaphorical  use  of  the  word  hoiise^ 
not  only  as  an  argument  for,  but  rather  as  a  positive  proof 
of  infant  baptism.  We  read  in  the  New  Testament  of 
the  baptism  of  Lydia,  and  of  her  house,  of  the  Jailer,  and 
of  his  house,  and  of  Stephanas,  and  of  his  house,  or  house- 
hold, as  it  is  translated.  The  question  now  is,  what  did 
the  inspired  penmen  mean  by  the  word  "^wse,"  in  the 
record  they  have  left  us  of  these,  and  of  other  family  bap- 
tisms? They  were  well  acquainted  with  the  meaning  of 
the  term  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  sometimes  signifying 
children  separate  from  their  parents,  and  little  children, 
and  infants  exclusively.  The  Jews  to  whom  they  wrote 
had  the  same  understanding  of  the  word;  and  if  it  is  ne- 
cessary, it  can  be  proved  that  the  Greeks  attached  the 
same  idea  to  it,  when  used  metaphorically.  When  the 
Jews  then  read  that  Lydia  and  her  house  (Oikos) — the 
Jailer  and  his  house  (Oikos) — and  the  house  (Oikos)  of 
Stephanas  were  baptized,  what  would  they,  or  what  could 
they  understand  by  the  word  in  those  several  passages? 
Would  they  not  attach  the  same  idea  wliich  they  had  been 
accustomed  to  affix  to  it  in  the  Old  Testament,  namely^  a 
man's  or  woman's  children  by  immediate  descent  or  adop- 
tion, infants  included?  If  according  to  the  Baptist  system, 
infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  then,  the  inspired  penmen 
have  used  a  word  calculated  to  deceive  both  Jews  and 
Greeks — ^but  this  is  not  to  be  admitted.  I  cannot  con- 
ceive of  any  possible  way  of  evading  the  argument  but  by 
alleging  that  they  used  it  in  a  new  and  limited  sense,  as 
embracing  only  children  arrived  to  maturity,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  infants.  But  where  is  the  proof  of  tliis?  An  in- 
stance or  two,  if  such  can  be  found,  of  their  using  it  in 
this  sense  cannot  overturn  the  argument;  for  to  overturn 
it,  it  must  be  proved  that  they  always  used  it  in  that  sense. 
But  this  I  fearlessly  affirm  cannot  be  done,  for  I  have  pro- 
ved the  reverse;  and  therefore  it  follows  incontrovertibiy 
that  they  attached  the  same  idea  to  it,  as  had  been  af- 
fixed by  their  sacred  writers  for  upward  of  two  thousand 
years^ 


39 

But  that  the  soundness  and  force  of  this  argument  may 
be  still  more  apparent,  I  would  observe  farther,  that  al- 
though there  are  other  Greek  words  as  Pais,  Paidion,  Pai- 
darion;  Brephos,  Brephullion;  Nepios,  Nepion;  and  Tek- 
non  and  Tekna;  and  which  are  frequently  used  in  the 
Septuagint,  and  in  the  Greek  Testament  to  designate  little 
children  and  infants  ^  yet  none  of  them  are  used  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  account  they  have 
given  us  of  family  baptisms.  The  reason  doubtless  was, 
that  these  words  are  rather  indeterminate  in  their  mean- 
ing, and  are  sometimes  employed  to  denote  persons  ap- 
proaching, or  arrived  to  maturity,  as  well  as  little  children 
and  infants.  Thus  in  Gen.  37:  30,  Joseph  is  styled  _''a 
child"  (Paidarion)  when  sixteen  years  of  age^  and  Benja- 
min '^a  little  one"''  (Paidion)  when  upwards  of  thirty. 
It  wa.s  therefore  with  an  evident  design,  that  they  used  a 
word  so  fixed  and  determinate  in  its  meaning  by  a  pres- 
cription of  two  thousand  years,  that  those  who  read  it 
would  not  be  mistaken,  but  immediately  understand  by  it, 
a  man's  or  woman's  family,  infants  included. 

I  have  extracted  and  condensed  the  foregoing  argitment 
from  a  pam.phlet  by  a  Mr.  Taylor,  the  Editor  of  Calm£t's 
Dictionary.  It  would  seem  that  Mr,  C.  has  either  seen 
that  pamphlet,  or  extracts  from  it  also,  in  Dr.  Ely's  quar- 
terly reviev/,  or  in  the  first  number  of  the  Pamphleteer, 
edited  at  Richmond  by  Dr.  Rice:  and  as  the  only  possible 
way  of  evading  the  force  of  this  argument,  he  roundly  af- 
firms in  pages  72,  7S-)  1st  Ed.  that  the  baptized  families 
mentioned  in  the  16th  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  apostles, 
and  elsewhere,  were  all  adults,  and  baptized  on  their  own 
profession  of  faith.  I  shall  now  examine  what  is  said  of 
the  baptism  of  those  families,  and  if  it  shall  appear  that  they 
were  not  all  adults,  then  I  shall  consider  the  question  as 
settled;  and  the  public  will  certainly  excuse  me  for  not 
noticing  any  thing  he  may  publish  on  this  subject,  until  he 
completely  overturns  the  foregoing,  and  this,  and  the  fol- 
lowing arguments.  In  such  an  event,  I  will  become  his 
proselyte,  and  thank  him  for  enlightening  my  mind. 
And 

First,  Mr.  C,  infers  that  all  the  members  of  the  house  of 
Lydia  were  adult  persons,  because  it  is  said  that  Paul  and 
Silas,  after  they  were  liberated  from  prison,  went  to  see, 
and  comfort  the  brethren  in  her  house.     Acts  16:  40. 


40 

The  very  language  of  Lydia  in  the  16th  verse  is  however 
a  strong  presumptive  argument  that  there  were  not  any 
believers  in  her  family  at  that  time.  Had  her  family  been 
believers  she  would  not  have  said,  as  she  did,  "If  ye  have 
judged  ME,"  but  "If  ye  have  judged  us"  "to  be  faithful, 
come  into  my  house,  (Oikon)  and  abide  there."  As  to 
the  brethren  whom  Paul  and  Silas  w-ent  to  visit  in  her 
house  at  the  time  alluded  to;  had  Mr.  C.  read  w  ith  atten- 
tion the  third  and  fourth  verses  of  that  chapter,  he  w  ould 
have  found  that  Timothy  was  with  them  in  their  journey 
from  Lystra  to  Philippi.  Had  he  read  the  10th,  11th  and 
12th  verses,  he  would  have  found  that  Luke,  the  relater 
of  the  incidents  of  that  journey,  joined  tliem  at  Troas— 
"Therefore  coasting  from  Troas  z/."ecame  a  straight  course 
to  Samothracia. "  And  had  he  read  the  loth  verse,  he 
would  have  found  that  Luke  was  one  of  those  whom  tlie 
kind-hearted  Lydia  not  only  besought,  but  constrained 
"to  come  into  her  hoiis'e  and  abide  there"- — "And  she  con- 
strained us. "  Putting  these  facts  together,  v/e  may  now 
see  that  Timothy  and  Luke  were  the  brethren  whom  Paul 
and  Silas  went  to  see  and  comfort,  after  they  themselves 
were  liberated  from  prison.  These  brethren  were  doubt- 
less much  depressed  in  mind  on  account  of  the  imprison- 
ment of  their  dear  friends  and  companions;  and  this  ac- 
counts for  the  expression  that  Paul  and  Silas  "v/ent  to  see, 
and  comfort  them."  To  this  may  be  added,  that  these  in- 
defatigable champions  of  the  cross  had  been  "certain 
days"  in  Philippi  previous  to  their  imprisonment.  It  is 
to  be  presumed  that  they  preached  the  gospel  during  "those 
days;"  and  as  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  was  attended 
with  much  power  at  that  period,  it  is  to  be  presumed  also 
that  some  believed.  These  w^ould  naturally  resort  to  the 
house  of  Lydia,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  Christian  fel- 
lowship, but  to  condole  with  Timothy  and  Luke;  and  these 
might  also  be  among  the  number  of  those  brethren  whom 
Paul  and  Silas  w^ent  to  visit  and  comfort  before  they  de- 
parted. But  be  that  as  it  may,  the  well  attested  fact  that 
Timothy  and  Luke  abode  in  the  house  of  Lydia  during 
the  imprisonment  of  Paul  and  Silas,  shews,  that  Islr,  C's 
inference  respecting  her  family  w^as  deduced  from  false 
premises. — So  far  then  the  foregoing  argument  stands  firm. 

Secondly;  Mr.  C.  affirms  that  the  family  of  the  jailer, 
mentioned  in  the  same  chapter,  w^ere  also  adult  believers 


41 

and  baptized  on  account  of  their  own  profession  of  faith? 
because,  as  he  expresses  it,  ''Paul  preached  salvation  to 
him,  and  his  house" — because  ''he  spake  the  word  of  the 
Lord  to  him,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house" — and  be- 
cause the  jailer  "rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his 
house. " — A  few  remarks  on  each  of  these  propositions  or 
premises  will  shew  their  fallaciousness,  and  the  conse- 
quent inconclusiveness  of  his  inference. 

The  first  proposition  is,  "That  Paul  preached  salvation 
to  the  jailer  and  his  house."  This,  I  presume  is  founded 
on  the  31st  verse,  and  the  word  "5«rsi"  in  that  verse,  as 
there  is  no  other  in  the  whole  passage  whence  it  can  be 
deduced.  "And  thej  said,  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  thoushalt  he  saved  Midi  thy  house,"  (Oikos.) 

That  the  real  meaning  of  the  apostle  may  be  seen  in  this 
passage,  it  may  be  necessary  to  observe,  that  the  w^ord 
salvation.,  like  many  other  words  in  the  scriptures,  is  used 
by  the  sacred  penmen  in  two  or  three  different  meanings 
or  acceptations.  Som.etimes  it  is  used  to  signify  a  deliv- 
erance from  temporal  danger  only.  This  is  its  meaning 
in  Exod.  14:  13,  where  Moses  speaking  of  that  deliverance 
which  Jehovah  was  about  to  vouchsafe  to  the  Israelites,  in 
the  destruction  of  their  enemies,  the  Egyptians,  says  to 
•the  former,  "stand  still,  ailB^see  the  salvation  of  the  Lord 
which  he  will  shew  to  you  to-day."  As  it  respects  spiri- 
tual objects  and  interests,  it  is  sometimes  used  to  signify 
the  ordinances  of  the  true  religion.  This  I  apprehend  is 
its  meaning  in  John  4 :  22,  where  Christ  tells  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  "That  salvation  is  of  the  Jews."  And  it  some- 
times means  that  pardon  of  sin,  sanctiiication  of  heart,  and 
eternal  life,  which  is  promised  to  all  true  believers  in  Christ. 
This  is  its  meaning  in  Rom.  1:  16,  where  the  apostle  says, 
'•I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  for  it  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation,  to  every  one  that  believeth, 
to  the  Jew  first  and  also  to  the  Greek." 

That  it  is  salvation  in  this  full  and  unlimited  sense  that 
Mr.  C.  intends  in  this  proposition,  will  I  expect  be  admit- 
ted. Indeed,  no  other  kind  of  salvation,  nor  any  salvation 
less  than  this,  would  answer  his  purpose,  as  he  contends 
that  a  profession  of  this  salvation  is  what  alone  can  entitle 
an  adult  to  baptism.  This  salvation  as  it  regards  adults 
is  promised  to  believers  onlyj  "He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
•*5 


42 

damned.*'  Now,  every  tyro  in  the  Greek  language  knows, 
that  the  verb  '''Fisteuson,^^  ^^believe,^^  in  this  verse,  is  in 
the  singular  number,  and  was  addressed  to  the  jailer  only, 
and  not  to  his  house  or  family.  As  they  were  all  adults, 
according  to  Mr.  C's  inference,  then,  Paul  did  not  preach 
this  full  salvation  to  them,  unless  he  preached  a  salvation 
that  may  be  obtained  ¥/ithout  believing,  or  that  the  children 
can  be  saved  by  the  faith  of  the  parent.  But  as  neither  of 
these  can  be  admitted,  the  question  now  is,  what  did  he 
mean  by  the  word  '^saved^^  in  that  verse,  as  it  has  reference 
to  the  jailer's  family?  The  apostle  Peter  answers  the  ques- 
tion in  the  3d  chapter  of  liis  1st  Epistle  25d  verse;  where 
he  tells  us  that  bapti^i  is  a  figure,  or  rather  an  antiiype 
C^antiti/pon^^)  of  the  deliverance  of  Noah  and  his  h6u«€  "py 
water;" — '^the  like  figure  whereunto  baptism  doth  also 
now  save  us."  Not  that  we  are  to  understand  the  apostle 
as  teaching  that  baptism  is  regeneration,  or  yet  a  seal  of  an 
interest  in  the  salvation  purchased  by  Christ,  to  either 
adults  or  infants,  until  they  bring  forth  "the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience  toward  God,"  as  the  fniit  of  a  living  faith 
in  a  risen  Saviour;  but  as  one  of  the  means  appointed  by 
the  Head  of  the  Church,  for  interesting  in  that  salvation, 
and  for  communicating  those  renewing  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  without  which  no  one  can  behold  his  face  in 
glory.  That  this  is  his  meaning  is  apparent  from  his  ad- 
vice to  the  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  "Be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  re- 
'jmission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost:  for  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children,  and 
to  all  who  are  afar  oiF,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call."  By  thus  bringing  Peter  and  Paul  together,  we 
learn  what  the  latter  meant  by  the  word  saved,  as  it  res- 
pected the  jailer's  family,  in  the  verse  now  under  conside- 
ration.— -That  by  his  believing  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
they  would  be  brought  under  baptism  as  a  mean  of  salva- 
tion, together  with  the  other  means  connected  with  it,  and 
which  we  are  afterwards  told  was  the  case.  Thus  a  due 
attention  to  the  tiTie  import  of  the  words  "believe,"  and 
*'saved,"  in  that  verse,  shews  the  fallaciousness  of  Mr.  C's 
proposition,  "that  Paul  preached  salvation  in  its  full  extent 
to  the  jailer  and  his  house;"  and  the  inference  deduced 
from  it,  that  they  were  adult  believers,  and  baptized  on 
their  own  profession  of  faith,  consequently  falls  to  the 
ground. 


43 

The  second  propo&ition  from  v/hich  he  has  drawn  this 
inference  is,  that  it  is  said  in  the  S2d  verse,  '*that  Paul 
spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  jailer,  and  to  all  that 
were  in  his  house,  (infants  and  adults.)" 

I  confess  that  I  was  surprized,  when  I  saw  the  w^ord  in- 
fants attached  to  this  proposition:  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
know  what  he  intended  b j  it,  and  what  purpose  it  w  as  to 
answer  in  his  argument.  Did  he  mean  that  Paul  spake 
the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  infants  of  the  jailer's  family? 
This  is  representing  the  apostle's  conduct  in  a  truly  ludi- 
crous point  of  lightj  as  infants  are  incapable  of  hearing  the 
word  so  as  to  understand  it,  and  profit  by  it.  Besides,  to 
admit  that  there  were  infants  in  the  jailer's^  family  is  giv- 
ing up  the  point  at  once;  for  as  we  are  told  in  the  follow- ing 
verse,  ''that  he  and  all  his  we're  baptized;"  then,  as  infants 
are  not  Capable  of  believing,  it  follows,  that  they  were  not 
baptized  on  account  of  their  own  faith,  but  on  account  of 
the  faith  of  their  parent.  It  would  seem  that  he  was  led 
to  acknowledge  that  there  v*^ere  infants  in  the  jailer's  fam- 
ily, from  the  scriptural  meaning  of  the  word  house;  with- 
out reflecting  that  this  acknowledgment  subverted  the 
Baptist,  and  established  the  Pedobaptist  system.  But  be 
that  as  it  may,  the  inspired  historian's  words  imply  that 
there  were  persons  in  the  jailer's  house  who  were  capable 
of  hearing  and  understanding  the  word,  and  the  question 
is,  who  were  they.^  An  inspection  of  the  Greek  w' ord  trans- 
lated house  in  that  verse  solves  the  question.  It  is  not 
Oikos,  but  Cikia,  which  when  used  metaphorically,  as  I 
think  is  the  case  in  this  verse,  denotes  a  man's  household 
or  servants;  and  that  the  jailer's  servants  would  be  per- 
sons capable  of  hearing  and  understanding  the  v/ord  spo- 
ken, is  what  was  to  be  expected  from  his  occupation. — It 
is  scarcely  worth  while  to  observe  that  little  children  and 
infants  are  unfit  guards  for  a  prison.  You  will  have  seen 
that  this  proposition,  as  stated  by  himself,  instead  of  sup- 
porting his  inference,  completely  overthrows  both  it,  and 
the  Baptist^ystem,  so  far  as  that  system  respects  the  right 
of  the  infants  of  baptized  persons  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism. 

The  third  proposition  is,  that  it  is  said  of  the  jailer  in 
the  S4th  verse,  that  he  "rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with 
all  his  house." 

Before  I  make  any  remarks  on  this  proposition,  it  may 


44 

not  be  unnecessary  to  observe,  that  the  Anabaptist  sys- 
teni,  as  it  was  then  styled,  prevailed  to  a  considerable  de- 
gree in  England,  at  the  time  the  translation  of  the  Bible  in 
present  use  was  made  under  James  1st.  It  has  been  fre- 
quently observed?  at  least,  strongly  suspected,  that  the 
translators,  or  a  majority  of  them,  w^ere  inclined  to  that 
system,  from  the  manner  in  which  they  have  translated 
several  passages  connected  with  baptism.  And  indeed 
the  manner  in  which  they  have  translated  the  passage  now 
under  examination  is  a  proof  of  it}  and  that  the  unlearned 
reader  should  draw  the  inference  from  it,  that  the  jailer's 
family  were  adult  believers,  is  nothing  extraordinary:  but 
that  Mr.  C.  who  is  the  Principal  of  an  Academy  in  whicli 
the  Greek  language  is  said  to  be  taught,  and  who,  as  a  dis- 
puter  and  writer  on  baptism,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  has  read 
this  passage  in  the  Greek  testament,  should  draw  that  in- 
ference from  it,  is  extraordinary  indeed 5  and  the  fact  is  a 
proof,  either,  that  he  does  not  understand  the  grammatical 
principles  of  the  Greek  language,  or  that  a  love  of  system, 
and  the  bold  defying  ground  which  he  has  assumed  in  this 
controversy,  have  so  blunted  his  moral  feelings  as  to  in- 
duce him  to  grasp  at  any  thing  that  has  the  appearance  of 
supporting  that  system,  and  of  m.aintaining  that  ground. 

That  these  strictures  are  just,  and  not  incorrect,  will 
be  admitted  by  every  person  who  is  acquainted  with  tlie 
Greek  language,  and  has  examined,  or  will  examine  the 
passage  in-  the  original  text.  I  have  already  observed, 
what,  every  school-boy  who  is  reading  the  Greek  testament 
knows,  that  the  verb  '^pisteusoii^^  ("believe")  in  the  31st 
verse,  is  in  the  singular  number,  and  was  consequently 
addressed  to  the  jailer,  and  not  to  his  family.  This  is  also 
the  case  with  the  participle  pepisteukoos  in  this  verse.  It 
is  also  in  the  singular  number,  and  in  the  past  tense,  and 
signifies  ''having  believed,^^  and  is  consequently  predica- 
ted of  the  jailer  himself,  and  not  of  his  house,  or  yet  of  his 
household.  As  for  the  adverb  PanoikU  it  is  evidently  an 
abbreviation  of  the  noun  Fanoikia,  which  signifies  a  whole 
household;  and  the  literal  meaning  of  the  whole  passage  is 
this — "He  rejoiced  v/ith  all  his  household,  having  himself 
believed  in  God,"  or  "having  believed  in  God,  he  rejoic- 
ed with  all  his  household."  I  fear  not  contradiction  to 
this  translation,  from  any  man  who  understands  the  Greek 
language.     It  is  true  indeed  that  some  expositors  under- 


45 

stand  bj  the  adverb  ''PanoiW^  ''every  ^art  of  the  house  or 
dwelling  places"  and  others  "the  whole  house  or  family." 
But  admitting  that  either  of  these  interpretations  is  prefer- 
able to  the  one  1  have  given;  yet  neither  of  them  will  coun- 
tenance Mr.  C's  inference;  for  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
those  of  his  children  who  were  capable  of  being  influenced 
by  the  passion  cf  fear,  would  rejoice,  when  they  saw  their 
father  rejoice,  although  their  joy  proceeded  only  from  the 
circumstance  of  their  having  escaped  the  effects  of  the  ap- 
paling  earthquake  that  caused  "die  foundations  of  the  pri- 
son to  shake."  In  a  vvord,  the  single  consideration  that 
the  children  of  the  jailer  were  not  called  upon  to  believe, 
while  their  father  was,  and  the  profound  silence  respecting 
their  believing,  while  we  are  expressly  told  of  his  "having 
believed,"  is  an  evidence,  that  they  were  not  capable  of 
believing,  and  as  they  were  baptized,  that  they  were  bap- 
tized on  account  of  the  faith  oi"  their  parent. 

Thus  all  the  premises  whence  Sir.  C.  has  inferred  that 
this  house  or  family  were  adult  believers,  v,  hen  brought  to 
the  touchstone  cf  the  original  t^-^t,  prove  fallacious |  and 
these  premises  evince,  at  the  same  time,  either  an  igno- 
rance of  the  elementary  principles  c^Tthe  Greek  language, 
or  a  design  to  impose  on  the  unlearned  by  a  shameful  so- 
pliistry.  He  cannot  but  feel  that  he  has  placed  himself 
betwixt  XT.a  horns  of  a  dilemma,  and  I  know  of  no  honour- 
able way  whereby  he  can  extricate  hims'elf  but  by  acknow- 
ledging his  ignorance  of  what  he  ought  to  have  known  be- 
fore he  began  to  write.  I  feel  disposed  to  impute  the  pal- 
pable blunders  he  has  committed  in  his  examination  of  the 
baptism  of  tliis  family,  rather  to  this  cause  than  to  a  desti- 
tution of  moral  principle,  or  a  disregard  to  morar  truth. 

Thirdly;  Mr.  C.  infers  that  the  house  of  Cornelius  men- 
tioned in  the  10th  chapter  were  all  believers,  because  it  is 
said  that  he  was  "a  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God 
witJi  all  his  hoiisep^  and  because  it  is  said  that  when  Peter 
preached  in  Ms  house,  "the  Holy  Giiost  fell  upon  them  all 
that  heard  the  word." 

That  Cornelius,  who  was  a  devout  man,  should,  like 
Abraham  of  old,  "command  his  children  and  household  to 
keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,"  is  vhat  v.as  to  be  expected 
from  his  character,  and  what  is  usually  the  case  with  good 
men.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  all  those  children,  who 
in  a  state  of  minority  are  restrained  from  evil,  and  influ- 


46 

enced  by  paternal  authority  and  example  to  respect  the 
character  of  God,  are  true  believers.  Thousands,  who  have 
been  thus  trained  up,  have  given  the  fullest  evidence  that 
the  reverse  was  their  character,  as  soon  as  they  arrived  to 
maturity,  and  were  removed  from  under  the  paternal  eye 
and  authority. 

That  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  those  "kinsmen,  and 
near  friends,"  vv^hom  Cornelius  had  called  together  on  the 
occasion,  and  that  they  were  baptized  on  their  own  per- 
sonal profession  of  faith,  w^as  indeed  the  case;  but  it  does 
not  follow,  nor  is  it  said  that  this  was  the  case  with  his 
children  or  house.  Peter,  when  defending  himself  for  as- 
sociating with  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  who  v/ere  uncir- 
cumcised  Gentiles,  mentions  a  circumstance  in  the  14th 
verse  of  the  following  chapter,  which,  when  taken  in  con- 
nexion with  the  words  '^Baptism  doth  7iow  saveiis,^^  and 
compared  with  the  words  of  Paul  and  Silas  to  the  jailer, 
fully  proves  that  the  house  of  Cornelius  were  not  baptized 
on  their  own  account,  but  on  account  of  the  faith  of  their 
parent.  Paul  and  Silas  said  to  the  jailer,  "believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  hoiisef^ 
and  Peter's  account  u,  that  an  angel  from  Heaven  advised 
Cornelius  to  send  for  Simon  whose  surname  is  Peter, 
"who  v^'ill  tell  thee  \jiot  thein]  words  whereby  thou  and 
all  thy  house  (Olkos)  shall  be  saved."  Let  it  now  be  ob- 
served that  the  words  addressed  to  both  houses  are  pre- 
cisely the  same,  and  the  promise  made  to  the  one,  is  m.ade 
to  the  other.  But  I  have  shevm  that  the  promise  of  salva- 
tion made  to  the  house  of  the  jailer  must  necessarily  be 
limited  to  the  means  of  salvation.  That  this  must  also  be 
the  meaning  of  the  salvation  promised  to  the  house  of  Cor- 
nelius is  evident  from  the  consideration  that  no  "words," 
however  good,  addressed  to  Cornelius,  and  believed  by 
him,  could  confer  eternal  salvation  on  his  children;  any 
more,  than  that  the  children  of  the  jailer  could  be  thus 
saved  by  his  believing.  It  fallows  then,  that  as  the  chil- 
dren of  the  jailer  were  brought  under  the  means  of  salva- 
tion by  baptism,  in  consequence  of  his  believing  and  being 
baptized,  so,  the  children  of  Cornelius  were  brought  under 
the  same  means,  by  the  same  ordinance,  by  his  believing, 
and  being  baptized  also.  It  is  true  that  they  are  not  spe- 
cifically m.entioned  amongst  those  whom  Peter  command- 
ed to  be  baptized  on  that  occasion;  but  that  they  were  bap- 


47 

tized  follows  from  this  consideration,  that  if  they  were  not 
baptized,  the  promise  to  them  was  not  made  good — ^but 
this  is  not  the  case  with  the  promises  of  God. 

Fourthly;  Mr.  C.  infers  that  the  house  of  Stephanas 
were  believers,  because  it  is  said,  1  Cor.  15:  16,  that 
they  were  "the  first  finiits  of  Achaia,  and  addicted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints. " 

There  is  a  difficulty  not  only  in  the  grammatical 
structure  of  that  passage,  but  in  the  directions  given  by 
the  apostles  relative  to  that  House,  that  has  perplexed  Ex- 
positors and  Commentators.  The  difficulty,  however,  as 
far  as  it  respects  the  point  in  debate,  vanishes  in  a  mO' 
ment,  when  we  consult  the  original  text.  When  Paul  tells 
us,  chapter  1:  16,  that  he  baptized  the  household  of  Ste- 
phanas, as  it  is  translated,  the  word  used  is  Oikos;  but  in 
the  passage  now  under  consideration  it  is  Oikia,  which  is  a 
proof  that  he  had  reference,  not  to  the  children,  but  to  the 
servants  of  Stephanas.  Their  being  styled  the  first  fruits 
of  Achaia,  is  a  proof  that  they  were  converted  to  the 
Christian  faith  at  the  same  time  with  their  master,  and 
this  circumstance,  together  with  the  character  for  kindness 
given  of  Stephanas  himself,  in  the  following  verse,  accounts 
for  their  addicting  themselves  to  the  ministry  or  service  of 
the  saints 5  and  hence  it  follows  that  the  house  of  Stepha- 
nas alluded  to  in  1  Cor.  1:  16,  is  to  be  classed  with  the 
house  of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia,  and  of  the  jailer. 

The  conclusion  then,  that  forces  itself  upon  the  mind 
from  a  close  inspection  of  the  baptism  of  those  houses  is, 
that  as  the  word  House  denotes  the  whole  family,  infants 
included,  and  sometimes  infants  exclusively;  ana  as  there 
is  not  the  least  intimation  that  any  individual  of  those 
families  believed,  that  they  were  baptized  on  account  of 
the  faith  of  their  parents.  This  conclusion  is  strengthened 
by  what  we  are  told  in  the  18th  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  respecting  the  baptism  of  Crispus  and  his  house. 
"And  Crispus  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue  believed 
with  all  his  house,"  and  were  baptized.  Here  we  are  told 
that  the  family  of  Crispus  were  capable  of  believing,  and 
believed,  and  the  circumstance  is  accordingly  distinctly 
related,  previous  to  the  account  of  their  being  baptized; 
and  if  any  of  the  family  of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia,  of  the 
jailer,  and  of  Stephanas,  had  been  capable  of  believing, 
and  believed,  can  we  suppose  that  the  circumstance  would 


48 

not  have  been  recorded  also;  for  to  record  the  triumphs  of 
the  Gospel  in  that  day,  over  obstinate  Jews,  and  idolatrous 
Gentiles,  was  the  principal  end  which  Luke  had  in  view 
in  writing  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

I  shall  close  this  argument  by  just  farther  observing, 
that  as  Mr.  C.  places  such  a  mighty  stress  on  ''a  positive 
precept,  or  precedent"  for  administering  positive  insti- 
tutes, he  may  find  both  in  the  baptism  of  the  Houses  alluded 
to,  provided  he  will  look  at  them  with  a  true  pliilological 
eye,  purged  from  the  mists  of  prejudice.  He  will  find 
his  positive  precept  in  the  meaning  which  the  inspired  his- 
torians must  have  necessarily  attached  to  the  word 
"House,"  and  his  precedent  in  the  baptism  of  the  houses 
mentioned.  But  I  am  not  to  be  understood  as  admitting*^ 
that  no  doctrine  is  to  be  believed  for  which  there  is  not  a 
positive  precept,  or  that  is  not  revealed  m  a  certain  form 
of  words;  nor  institute  observed  for  which  there  is  no  pre- 
cedent, or  example,  that  persons  of  a  certain  age  or  sex 
were  admitted  to  that  institute  or  ordinance.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  as  much  a  positive 
doctrine  as  what  we  are  taught  respecting  the  manner  of 
administering  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  per- 
sons to  whom  they  are  to  be  administered;  that  is,  human 
reason  could  never  have  discovered  it.  And  yet  our  bles- 
sed Lord,  in  proving  that  doctrine  against  the  Sadducees 
who  denied  it,  did  not  refer  to  any  positive  precept  or  pre- 
cedent, but  proves  it  by  a  train  of  reasoning,  or  by  dedu- 
cing consequences  from  scripture  premises.  ''But  as 
touching  the  resuiTection  of  the  dead,  have  ye  not  heard 
that  which  was  spoken  to  you  saying;  I  am  the  ^God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob;  God  is 
not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living."  And  admit- 
ting that  there  is  not  a  positive  precept,  or  precedent  for 
infant  baptism,  yet  Pedobaptists  are  certain  that  they  are 
correct,  while  they  can  prove  it  by  legitimate  consequen- 
ces drawn  from  scripture  premises;  and  for  the  validity  of 
such  proof,  they  have  the  highest  authority — the  authority 
of  him  who  was  "the  truth"  itself.  It  is  on  this  princi- 
ple that  they  admit  believing  women  to  the  table  of  the 
Lord,  for  let  it  be  remembered  that  there  is  neither  posi- 
tive precept  or  precedent  for  admitting  them;  and  it  is  on 
the  same  principle  that  they  observe  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Sabbath;  neither  of  wliich  Baptists  should  do 


49 

on  their  own  principles,  and  if  tliej  acted  consistent!^/ 
And  indeed,  a  sense  of  consistency  has  induced  some 
Baptists  to  deny  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  to  be  ob- 
served as  a  Sabbath  unto  the  Lord.  Why  they  have  not 
denied  the  Lord's  Supper  to  women  I  know  not,  unless 
that  they  saw,  that  to  push  their  ideas  of  consistency  so  far, 
would  be  such  an  outrage  on  the  rights  of  pious  women,  as 
would  endanger  their  church,  if  not  erase  its  very  founda- 
tions^  and  I  leave  it  to  you  to  judge  whether  Mr.  C's  ar- 
gument in  p.  71,  for  admitting  them,  though  valid  enough, 
is  either  as  clear  or  as  strong  as  the  argument  for  infant 
baptism  deduced  from  the  example  of  the  apostles  in  bap- 
tizing the  houses  of  baptized  parents.* 
•  But  after  all,  deep-rooted  prejudice  may  say,  that  we 
are  not  positively  told  that  there  were  any  little  children 
er  infants  in  those  houses.  In  reply  to  this  I  would  ask 
the  most  prejudiced  and  prepossessed,  if  they  can  possibly 
suppose  that  the  inspired  penman  \v^ould  use  a  w^ord  that 
not  only  embraces  little  children  as  a  part  of  a  family,  but 
is  used  to  denote  infants  exclusively,  if  he  knew  that  there 
were  no  infants  in  those  houses,  or  if  he  knew  that  infants 
were  not  to  be  baptized.  On  the  contrary,  is  not  his  using 
such  a  word  a  proof  that  he  knew  that  there  were  infants 
in  those  houses;  and  of  the  houses  of  Lydia  and  the  jailer 
he  had  a  personal  knowledge,  for,  as  we  have  shewn  he 
was  at  Philippi  when  they  were  baptized, 

*It  may  be  asked,  why  is  it,  that  there  is  no  '^express  precept, 
or  precedent"  for  admitting-  women  to  the  ordinance  of  the  sup- 
per. The  reason  seems  to  be  this:  They  were  admitted  to  the 
oi'dinance  of  the  passover  (Exod.  12,)  which  had  reference  to  the 
same  object,  as  has  the  ordinance  of  the  supper — *'the  Lamb  of 
God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world."  And  as  every  di- 
vine gi-ant  to  the  church,  and  every  pri-vileg-e  confeiTed  on  her 
members,  is  in  force  until  revoked,  it  was  therefore  not  necessary 
to  mention  their  right  in  express  terms.  This,  it  would  seem,  is 
also  the  reason,  why  the  right  of  the  infant  children  of  church 
members  to  baptism,  thoug'h  often  refen-ed  to,  and  agreed  upon 
by  the  inspired  penmen  is  not  mentioned  in  express  terms.  They 
had  been  admitted  into  the  church  of  God  under  both  the  Patri- 
archal and  Abrahamic  dispensations  of  gi-ace,  and  acknowledged 
as  church  members  by  Christ  himself;  (Mat.  9 :  14,)  their  right 
then  is  still  valid,  unless  it  can  be  shewn,  that  it  has  been  revo- 
ked. This  consideration  may  perhaps  relieve  the  minds  of  those 
who  have  been  led  astray,  by  the  artful,  but  sophistical  argument, 
— *'that  there  is  no  positive  precept  or  precedent  for  infant  bap- 
tism." 6 


50 

But  besides  this,  I  will  state  a  plain  case,  which  has  in- 
deed been  stated  bj  others,  and  which  I  think  will  decide 
the  question  to  every  person  who  will  be  at  the  trouble  of 
making  the  experiment.  We  are  told  that  Cornelius, 
Ljdia,  the  jailer,  and  Stephanas  were  themselves  baptized, 
and  their  families  also.  Now  let  a  list  of  all  the  families 
in  any  given  district  be  taken:  let  that  list  be  presented 
to  a  person  entirely  unacquainted  with  them;  and  let  him 
select  four  families  out  of  that  list;  and  then  let  the  inquiry 
be  made,  whether  there  is,  or  is  not,  a  little  child  or  infant 
in  any  of  those  families.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  sa^dng, 
that  out  of  a  hundred  selections  or  trials,  there  would  be 
found  a  minor  child  or  infant  in  some  one  of  them,  for  one 
selection  where  no  such  child  would  be  found.  Every  per- 
son versed  in  the  science  of  calculation,  will  immediately 
see  that  in  the  case  now  stated,  there  is  not  only  a  hundred, 
but  hundreds  against  one.  From  the  whole  I  will  now 
venture  to  say,  that  the  baptism  of  the  houses  referred  to, 
is  not  only  a  presumptive  argument  of  the  strongest  kind 
for  infant  baptism;  but  when  duly  weighed,  and  considered 
in  all  its  bearings,  will  of  itself  be  decisive  with  every  in- 
telligent person  whose  mind  is  not  warped  by  prejudice  and 
prepossession.     May  I  not  say  more — ^that  it  is  irresistible  r 

Another  argument,  if  not  a  positive  precept  for  infant 
tism,  is  to  be  found  in  Mat.  28:  19,  20.  ''Go  ye 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  -them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you. " 

The  argument  lies  in  tl|e  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb 
^'matheteusate^^  in  the  19th  verse,  which,  although  trans- 
lated "teach,"  signifies  to  make  disciples,  as  is  acknowl- 
edged by  the  ablest  translators  and  commentators;  jea,  is 
acknowledged  by  Mr.  C.  himself  in  p.  151;  with  this  dif- 
ference, that  instead  of  making  the  risen  Saviour  say.  Go, 
and  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  he  makes  him  say,  Go, 
and  make  disciples  out  of  all  nations.  His  reason  for  thus 
supplying  what  he  virtually  tells  us  is  wanting  in  the  words 
of  the  Saviour  himself,  and  mending  his  commission  to  his 
disciples,  is  very  obvious  to  the  intelligent  reader.  But 
the  Greek  preposition  ek  which  is  sometimes  used  to  signify 
out  qf,  is  not  in  tlie  passage,  and  had  it  been  omitted  by  an 


51 

ELLIPSIS,  then  the  nouns  pania  ta  ethne,  "all  nations" 
would  have  been  in  the  genative,  whereas  they  are  in  the 
accusative  case;  and  therefore,  as  every  good  linguist 
knows,  the  clause  translated,  "Go,  teach  all  nations,"  lit- 
erally signifies,  Go,  disciple  all  nations. 

From  these  observations  the  argument  for  infant  baptism 
is  obvious  and  irresistible.  The  command  and  commission 
is,  to  disciple  all  nations,  of  which  infants  and  minors  are 
a  large  component  part,  and  how  this  is  to  be  done  we  are 
told  in  the  next  following  words,  ''baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost^ 
and  when  they  are  thus  made  disciples,  then,  they  are  to 
be  taught  all  things  whatsoever  Christ  hath  commanded. 
Tliis  you  will  have  perceived  is  agreeable  to  the  order  of 
nature,  and  the  established  practice  of  mankind  resulting 
from  that  order,  in  communicating  knowledge  to  the  young, 
and  illiterate;  first  to  enrol  them  in  a  school,  and  then  teach 
them  in  that  school  the  requisite  branches  of  literature. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  system  of  the  Baptist  church,  and' 
tlieir  practice  resulting  from  that  system,  reverses  this  or- 
der. They  keep  their  children  out  of  the  school  of  Christ, 
(and  whose  scholars  should  children  be  but  Christ's?)  and 
if  perchance  they  have  learned  out  of  that  school  the  ele- 
mentary principles  of  his  religion,  and  profess  faith  in  him 
as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  sinners,  then  they  bring 
them  by  baptism  into  his  school  or  churcli,  but  which  I  trust 
I  shall  shew'in  the  next  letter  was  designed  to  be  at  the 
sam6  time,  the  mother,  the  nurse,  and  the  instructress  of 
those  whom  he  designed  to  save.  It  is  true  that  the  preju- 
dices, ignorance,  and  perverseness  of  men  often  counter- 
act his  wise  designs;  and  that -«n}'' are  saved  through  any 
other  plan,  than  that  he  himself  has  devised  and  revealed, 
shews  him  to  be  "the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and 
gracious"  in  deed  ^  You  will  also  have  perceived  that  the 
foregoing  remarks  were  designed  to  apply  only  to  the  chil- 
dren of  church-members,  and  not  to  adult  unbaptized  per- 
sons. With  respect  to  such  we  are  told  in  the  2d  chapter 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  they  must  possess  a  knowl- 
edge of  Christ  as  an  all-sitfficient,  and  the  only  Saviour, 
and  be  deeply  sensil»le  that  they  are  guilty  and  depraved 
sinners,  before  they  can  be  baptized;  and  when  such  are 
baptized,  then,  as  in  the  cases  of  Lydia,  of  the  jailer,  and 
others,  their  children  or  houses  are  to  be  baptized  with 


52 

tihem,  as  a  part  of  the  naiions  for  whom  baptism  was  ap- 
pointed;-'for  the  promise  is  to  you  Jews,  (said  Peter)  and 
to  your  children,  and  to  all  who  are  afar  O/f  (or  the  Gen- 
tile nations.)  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  eall/ - 

But  Mr.  C.  has  not  only  tried  to  invalidate  the  argu- 
ment for  the  baptism  of  infants  deduced  from  the  commis- 
gion  of  Christ,  to  disciple  them  by  that  ordinance,  by  al- 
tering or  rather  amending  the  commission  with  a  word  of 
his  own;  he  tries  also  in  p.  153,  to  run  the  argument  down 
with  high  sounding  words,  and  by  worse  than  empty  de- 
clamation. ''To  talk,  (he  tells  us,)  of  an  infant  disciple, 
or  to  say  that  an  infant  of  eight  or  ten  days  old  can  be  a 
disciple  or  scholar  of  Christ,  not  only  contradicts  all  scrip- 
ture, but  shocks  all  common  sense. " 

Surely  Mr.  C.  did  not  reflect  when  he  wrote  this  sneer- 
ing, and  in  my  opinion,  impious  sentence,  that  Christ 
teaches  his  disciples  or  scholars,  not  only  by  his  word,  but 
by  his  Spint.  How  soon  .young  cliildren  may  be  taught 
from  the  word  of  God,  I  will  not  positively  say;  but  certain 
I  am  that  they  are  capable  of  receiving  ideas  concerning 
God  and  things  divine,  much  sooner  than  is  usually  ad:nit- 
ted.  Well  attested  instances  that  this  is  the  case  miglit  be 
produced,  and  which  to  some  might  appear  almost  incred- 
ible. That  they  are  capable  of  being  savingly  wrought 
upon  at  any  age — at  the  age  of  eight  or  ten  days,  will  be 
admitted  by  all  who  have  scriptural  views  of  the  boundless 
power  and  grace  of  God.  To  say  as  we  do,  that  they  arc 
not  capable  of  being  thus  wrought  upon,  can  be  "shocking 
to  the  common  sense"  of  those  only  who  are  under  the  dark- 
ening and  deleterious  influence  of  an  unscriptural  system. 
— And  so  far  is  it  from  being  the  case,  that  this  doctrine 
is  "contradictory  to  all  scripture,"  that,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  amply  supported  by  scriptural  facts.  The  propliet 
vSamuel,  while  yet  a  mere  child,  "was  in  favour  both  vith 
the  Lord  and  also  with  men:"  and  John  the  Baptist  is  said 
to  have  been  "filled  with  the  Koly  Ghost,  even  from  his 
mother's  womb. "  And  to  this  I  would  add,  that  infants 
are  expressly  called  disciples  in  Acts  15:  10.  "Now 
therefore  why  tempt  ye  God,  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of 
the  DISCIPLES,  wiiich  neither  our  fathers  nor  v.  e  viere  able 
to  bear. " 

The  occasion  that  gave  rise  to  their  receiving  this  appel- 
lation is  distinctly  recorded  in  the  beginning  of  the  chap- 


ter.  In  the  1st  verse  we  are  informed  that  certain  men 
came  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  '^and  taught  the  breth- 
ren (or  the  Gentile  converts)  saying,  except  ye  be  circum- 
cised after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."' 
And  in  the  5th  verse  v,e  are  told  that  in  Jerusalem,  ''there 
rose  up  certain  of  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees  which  believed 
saying,  tliat  it  v^as  needful  to  circumcise  them,  and  to 
command  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses. "  A  council  of 
the  apostles  and  elders  met  at  Jerusalem  "to  consider  of 
this  matter."  "And  when  there  had  been  much  dispu- 
ting, Peter  rose  up,  and  said  unto  them,  men  and  brethren, 
ye  know  how  that  God  a  good  while  ago  made  choice  of  us 
that  the  Gentiles  by  my  mouth  should  hear  the  word  of 
the  Gospel,  and  believe. — Nov/  therefore  vvhy  tempt  ye 
God,  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of  the  disciples^  which 
neither  our  fathers,  nor  we,  were  able  to  bear." 

Nov/,  that  by  the  expression  "disciples"  in  this  verse, 
the  apostle  meant  infants  as  well  as  adults,  will  be  evident 
to  every  one  who  will  but  recollect,  that  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  not  only  every  adult  male,  but  every  male 
child  eight  days  old  w  ere  to  be  circumcised,  under  the  pen- 
alty that  "the  uncircumcised  man-child  was  to  be  cut  off 
from  the  people  of  God."  But  we  are  told  in  the  1st  and 
5th  verses,  that  the  Judaizing  teachers,  as  they  are  usu- 
ally styled,  were  for  imposing  the  law  of  Moses  on  the 
Gentile  converts,  and  especially  circumcision  "after  the 
manner  of  Moses,"  or  to  the  extent  that  it  had  been  en- 
joined under  that  dispensation.  This  Peter  opposed,  both 
because  the  Mosaic  dispensation  had  expired  by  its  own 
limitation,  and  because  circumcision,  then  superseded  by 
baptism,  was  a  bloody  and  painful  rite,  especially  to  in- 
fants, and  therefore  he  said  with  his  usual  warmth,  "Why 
tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of  the  disciples, 
which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear?" 

The  late  and  lamented  J.  P.  Campbell  has  also  adduced 
this  same  verse  as  a  proof  that  infants  are  called  disciples, 
and  it  seems  that  a  Dr^  Lathrop,  whose  writings  I  have 
not  seen,  has  done  the  same  thing.  And  how  now  does 
Mr.  C.  who  has  '•'defied  all  Christendom''^  meet  and  confute 
these  formidable  opponents?  At  first,  indeed,  he  pays  a 
deserved  compliment  to  his  namesake's  talents,  and  then 
as  an  answer  to  his  arguments  in  favour  of  infant  baptism, 
he  calls  him  a  sophist,  or  charges  him  with  sophistry;  but 
*6 


54 

as  these  are  epithets  which  he  liberailj  bestows  on  evciy 
Pedobaptist  writer,  we  must  consider  them  as  words  of 
course.  As  for  the  poor  Doctor,  he  pursues  him  with  an 
unceasing  torrent  of  what  he  designed  as  witticisms,  but 
which  some  may  call  bj  another  name,  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  15 2d  page,  and  part  of  the  next.  He  tells  us. 
that  a  "greater  sophist  on  this  subject,  luas  not  appeared 
for  the  twenty-five  years  last  past" — and  that  his  argu- 
ments for  considering  infants  as  included  in  the  word  "dis- 
ciples" in  this  verse,  is  "a  figment  so  puerile,  so  diminu- 
tive,'^^ "that  had  not  a  Doctor  said  so,  he  would  have  con- 
sidered it  out  of  all  character  to  reply  to  it:"  for  it  was 
only  the  "brethren  mentioned  in  the  1st  verse  that  are  al- 
luded to  in  the  10th,  to  the  exclusion  of  their  infant  chil- 
dren." 

Now,  this  assertion  may  perhaps  pass  with  ISIr.  C^ 
friends  and  admirers,  and  with  superficial  readers  of  the 
Bible^  but  the  person  who  wishes  to  understand  w^hat  he 
reads  will  ask,  w  hat  is  meant  by  those  emphatic  words  in  the 
first  verse,  "circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,"  but 
which  Mr.  C.  has  carefully  avoided  explaining^  and  what 
is  intended  in  the  fifth  verse  "by  keeping  the  law  of  Mo- 
ses," and  which  he  has  also  as  cautiously  avoided.  Such 
a  person  will  ask,  did  the  inspired  penman  mean  that  only 
the  Gentde  converts  themselves,  and  not  their  childreUy 
should  be  circumcised,  according  to  the  recjuisitiou  of  the 
Judaiz-ing  teachers?  No — for  if  that  had  been  his  design 
he  w^ould  have  simply  said  so,  and  the  words,  "after  the 
manner  of  Moses"  v,  ould  have  been  altogether  superflu- 
ous. The  question  will  recur;  what  did  he  mean  by  the 
word  "manner"  in  the  first  verse.^  If  he  understands  the 
Greek  language,  and  consults  the  Greek  Testament,  he 
will  find  that  the  original  word  is  ethei,  which  the  best 
Lexicographers  will  tell  him,  signifies  "rite,  usage,  cus- 
tom." It  cannot  but  then  occur  to  him,  that  to  be  "cir- 
cumcised" after  the  manner  of  Moses,  must  mean  circum- 
cision to  the  extent  that  was  usual,  and  customary,  under 
the  Mosaic  dispensation.  But  according  to  that  dispensa- 
tion the  male  infants  of  circumcised  parents  were  to  be 
circumcised  also;  and  if  the  Judaizing  teachers  had  requi- 
red that  the  believing  Gentiles  were  only  to  be  circumcised, 
and  not  their  children,  as  Mr.  C.  asserts  was  the  case,  thit 
would  not  have  been  circumcision  "after  the  manner  of 


55 

Moses,"  and  tliat  would  have  been  ''keeping  the  law  of 
Moses"  only  in  part,  as  that  law  enjflined  that  rite,  or  or- 
dinance, in  a  v.'ord,  the  conclusion  which  I  think  every 
unprejudiced  and  reflecting  reader  of  the  Bible  will  draw 
from  the  Avhole  passage,  must  be  this — that  as  the  words 
"circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses"  in  the  first  verse,, 
must  mean  the  circumcision  of  infants  and  adults,  then, 
infants  as  well  as  adults  must  be  meant  by  'Hhe  disciples" 
in  the  tenth  verse.  1  sliall  only  add  on  this  point,  that 
admitting  the  interpretation  I  have  given  to  these  verses  is 
wrong,  and  that  the  conclusion  I  have  drawn  from  that  in- 
terpretation is  incorrect,  still  I  must  insist  tliat  the  com- 
mand of  Christ  in  Mat.  28:  19,  to  disciple  all  nations  by 
baptism,  is  an  unanswerable  argument,  if  not  a  positive 
precept,  for  infant  baptism.,  and  that  tlie  syllogism  which 
Mr.  C.  has  been  so  kind  as  to  construct  from  that  passage, 
for  the  Pedobaptists,  is  logically  sound  and  good.  It  might 
indeed  have  been  more  clearly  stated,  but  I  admii  it  as  it 
is — "Ail  nations  are  commanded  to  be  baptized,  and  in- 
fants are  a  part  of  all  nations:  therefore  infants  are  to  be 
baptized." 

But  Mr.  C»  m.ay  say,  that  I  have  overlooked  his  criti- 
cism on  that  passage,  intended  to  prove  that  it  vras  not  the 
nations  as  composed  of  adults  and  infants  that  were  com- 
manded to  be  baptized,  but  believing  adults  only,  and  that 
the  syllogism  was  consequently  unsound. 

And  what  now  is  this  learned  criticism?  This — that  the 
Greek  nouns  ''pant a  ta  ethne,^^  '^all  nations ^^^  are  in  the^ 
neuter,  and  ''autous,^^  "them,"  or  the  persons  who  are  to 
be  baptized,  is  in  the  masculine  gender,  and  as  these  words 
do  not  agree  in  gender,  then  v/e  must  look  out  for  some 
noun  that  agrees  with  autoiis^  and  Mr.  C.  has  found  it, 
where  few  but  himself  would  have  looked  fur  it,  in  the 
noun  mathetas,  which  is  not  in  the  passage,  but  which  he 
tells  us  is  included  in  the  verb  '•matheteusate,''^ 

And  what  if  ''ethne^^^  and  ''autous^^  doaiot  agree  in  gen- 
der, are  not  nations  composed  of  males  and  females;  and 
as  according  to  the  gi"ammatical  statute,  the  masculine  is 
more  worthy  than  the  feminine  or  neuter  genders;  in  what 
other  gender  than  the  masculine,  could  the  relative  ''au- 
tous^^  be  put  in  a  sentence  of  such  a  structure.^  There  is, 
a  passage  of  a  similar  structure  in  the  latter  clause  of  the 
y  19th  and  £Oth  verse  of  the  9th  Psalm,  on  which  I  would 


be  glad  to  see  Mr.  C.^xercise  his  critical  acumen  accord- 
ing to  his  own  rif!e  made  and  provided  for  Mat.  28:  19. 
"Let  the  heathen  be  judged  in  thj  sight.   Put  them  in  fear, 

0  Lord,  that  the  nations  maj  know  themselves  to  be  but 
men.*'  Now  in  tlie  Septuagint  translation  of  this  passage, 
the  word  ''heathen"  and  "nations,"  is  the  neuter  noun 
eiltne,  and  the  word  '-'them"  is  also  ^^autous;^'^  and  until 
Mr.  C.  vviii  prove  that  it  is  not  the  heathen  in  general,  but 
some  particular  individuals  amongst  them,  that  the  Psal- 
mist prayetii  unto  the  Lord  "to  put  in  fear:"  and  until  he 
finds  those  individuals  in  the  verb  krithetoscm,  "let  them 
be  judged,"  he  must  excuse  me  if  I  shall  consider  his  cri- 
ticism on  Mat.  28:  19,  to  be  very  meagre,  and  very  misera- 
ble. Perhaps  he  may  choose  to  connect  the  words,  "put 
them  in  fear,"  v/ith  "e//me",  ''mations"  in  the  20th  verse. 
It  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  and  the  same  task  is  before 
him?  for,  according  to  his  own  rule,  he  must  find  the  parti- 
cular individuals  who  are  "to  know  themselves  to  be  but 
men" — [anthropoi,  a  noun  of  the  common  gender,)  in  the 
words  kaiasieson  nomothefon,  in  our  version  "put  them  in 
fear,"  but  in  the  Septuagint,  "stand  over  them  as  a  law- 
giver." I  shall  leave  the  arrangement  and  connexion  en- 
tirely to  himself,  and  when  lie  has  performed  this  task, 

1  shall  furnish  him  with  a  few  more  passages  of  a  similar 
structure. 

I  shall  only  examine  another  passage,  1  Cor.  7:  14,  not 
only  as  a  proof  of  infant  baptism,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
pointing  out  some  of  the  absurd  and  distorted  views  which 
Baptist  writers  are  compelled  to  give  of  the  word  of  God, 
in  defence  of  their  systein.  The  passage  reads  thus;  "For 
the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy." 

That  we  may  have  correct  views  of  this  passage,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  recollect  that  in  Deut.  7:  3,  the  Jew^s  were 
forbidden  to  marry  Gentile  women.  And  when  this  took 
place,  then,  the  Gentile  woman,  and  the  children  born  by 
her  were  to  be  put  away  as  "unclean,"  or  as  not  admissible 
to  the  Jewish  church,  and  which  we  are  told  in  the  book 
of  Ezra  was  actually  done  in  his  day.  Should  the  Gentile 
woman  however  become  a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion, 
as  did  Ruth  the  Moabitess,  it  altered  the  case,  and  she  and 


her  children  became  incorporated  vvith  the  Jewish  Ration^ 
and  entitled  to  all  their  religions  privileges.  The  reason 
for  this  strong  prohibition,  and  severe  statute,,  as  it  may 
appear  to  some,  was,  that  the  Jevv^s  might  be  kept  separate 
from  all  other  nations,  and  the  fact  ascertained  that  the 
Messiah  sprung  from  that  nation,  and  also  to  prevent  their 
being  seduced  into  idolatry  by  their  Gentile  wives. 

it  appears  from  the  preceding  context,  that  there  v^ere 
in  the  church  of  Corinth  believing  v/ives  who  had  unbeliev- 
ing husbands,  and  believing  husbands  who  had  unbelieving 
wives.  It  would  seem  that  the  apostle  had  been  a&ked  the 
question,  v/hether  the  Jewish  lav/  respecting  such  marria- 
ges should  be  enforced  on  the  Christian  cnurches.  He- 
answers  the  question  in  the  12th  and  13th  verses^  "If  any 
brother  hath  a  v/ife  that  believeth  not,  and  she  be  pleased 
to  dwell  with  him,  let  him  not  put  her  away.  And  the 
woman  that  liath  a  husband  that  believeth  not,  and  he  be 
pleased  to  dwell  with  lier,  let  her  not  leave  him 5"  and  then 
he  assigns  the  reason  for  this  advice,  or  rather  command | 
"for  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,^  and 
the  unbelieving  v/ife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband |  else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy. " 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  the  words  "un- 
believing husband,"  and  "unbelieving  wife,"  plainly  im- 
ply, and  v,hat  the  apostle  says  in  the  l£th  and  IStli  ver- 
ses expressly  declares,  that  the  law  pronouncing  the  mar- 
riage of  a  Jev/  with  a  Gentile  woman  illegitimate,  has  been 
repealed,  and  is  not  now  obligatory  on  the  Christian 
churches.  It  was  enacted  for  the  special  and  wise  purpo- 
ses mxcntioned,  and  when  those  purposes  vvere  ansv»^ered, 
it  expired  by  its  own  limitation.  It  is  true  that  in  2  Cor, 
6:  16,  the  apostle  says  to  professing  Christians,  "Be  ye 
not  unequally  yoked  together  with  unbelievers^"  and  as- 
signs strong  reasons  why  such  connexions  should  not  be 
formed;  but  he  does  not  say  that  such  connexions  when  in- 
advertently formed,  are  illegitimate,  and  the  offspring  il- 
legitimate. On  the  contrary,  in  the  passage  now  under 
consideration,  and  in  the  preceding  context,  he  repeatedly 
styles  the  person  v.ho  had  formed  such  a  connexion,  hu&~ 
hand  and  loife,  and  the  reason  why  he  advises  believers 
not  to  marry  unbelievers,  v/as  not,  that  such  Trairriages  are 
dlegitimate,  but  on  account  of  the  inconveniences  result- 
ing from  such  a  connexion  to  the  believing  party. 


It  is  admitted  by  both  Baptist  and  Pedobaptist  writers, 
that  the  Greek  words  translated  "'sanctified,"  and  ''holy," 
in  this  passage  do  not  denote  moral  purity:  as  tlie  believ- 
ing husband  or  wife  cannot  confer  faith  on  their  unbeliev- 
ing companions;  nor  can  the  believing  parent  or  parents 
impart  regenerating  grace  to  their  children;  but  the  idea 
attached  to  the  vrords  by  those  two  parties  is  very  differ- 
ent. Di-.  Gill,  the  great  champion  of  the  Baptists,  con- 
tends in  his  commentary  on  the  place,  that  the  Hebrew 
word  translated  "sanctified"  signifies  "legally  es-poused," 
and  as  a  proof  he  refers  us  to  the  different  Jewish  Rabbies, 
who  used  the  word  in  that  sense:  to  which  he  adds  Job  1: 
5,  as  so  interpreted  by  the  Jews;  and  thence  he  infers  that 
the  words  translated  "unclean,"  and  "holy"  must  mean, 
the  one,  illegitimately,  and  the  other,  legitimately  born. 

That  the  marriage  relation,  and  the  marriage  covenant 
whereby  that  relation  is  formed,  is  aliiided  to  in  the  word 
''sanctified"  is  admitted:  but  that  the  apostle  meant  by  it 
**legally  espoused,"  we  cannot  admit  for  this  simple  rea- 
son; that  in  the  preceding  context  he  repeatedly  styles  the 
persons  who  are  said  to  be  "sanctified,"  husband  and  wife, 
and  every  one  knov/s  that  the  words  husband  and  wife  de- 
note those  who  have  been  lawfully  married  to  each  other, 
and  that  the  epithet  given  in  the  Scriptures  to  those  who 
cohabit  without  being  lawfully  married,  is,  adulterers,  and 
adulteresses.  With  this  recollection  in  view,  every  in- 
telligent reader  will  now  see,  that  this  interpretation 
makes  the  apostle  write  and  reason  very  foolishly,  or  say- 
ing that  a  husband,  or  a  man  lawfully  married,  is  sancti- 
fied, or  lawfully  married  to  his  wife,  or  to  a  woman  that 
has  been  lav/fully  married  to  iiim.  Such  a  person  will  al- 
so see  that  this  is  not  the  only  absurdity  which  this  inter- 
pretation fixes  on  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle.  He  will 
see,  that  it  represents  him  as  proving  the  legitimacy  of  the 
marriage  of  the  parents,  by  the  legitimacy  of  the  children; 
or  saying  to  the  unbeliever  you  are  legally  espoused  to  t;ie 
believer — why? — because  your  children  are  not  illegiti- 
mate, but  legitimate;  "for  the  unbelieving  husband  is 
sa.nctified  by  the  wife,"  &c.  "else  were  your  children  un- 
clean, but  now  are  they  holy. " 

But  besides  this,  although  the  word  tra,nslated  "sancti- 
fied" is  used  almost  numberless  times  in  the  Septuagint, 
and  in  the  Greek  Testament,  it  is  vet  never  used  in  the 


59 

sense  affixed  to  it  by  Dr.  Gill  in  this  passage.  If  that  was 
the  case,  his  sagacity,  and  extensive  Biblical  knowledge 
would  have  certainly  discovered  it,  and  he  would  as  cer- 
tainly have  referred  to  it  in  support  of  his  interpretation. 
The  circumstance  of  some  of  the  Jewish  Rabbles  using  it 
in  that  sense  is  no  authorit}'-  for  the  scriptural  meaning  of 
that,  or  of  any  other  word.  They  all  lived  long  since  the 
New  Testament  was  written;  and  to  establish  a  doctrine 
by  the  meaning  of  the  word  that  conveys  it,  it  must  be  by 
the  meaning  which  the  inspired  penmen  attach  to  it,  and 
not  that  of  any  other  writers.  As  for  Job  1:  5,  where  it 
is  said  "that  Job  sent  and  sanctified  his  sons  when  the  days 
of  their  feasting  v/ere  gone  about;"  the  words  that  imme- 
diately follow,  tell  us  that  that  sanctification  had  not  the 
least  reference  to  his  bestowing  them  in  marriage.  The 
words  are,  "And  he  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  of- 
fered burnt  ofterings  according  to  the  number  of  them  all; 
for  Job  said,  it  may  be  that  my  sons  have  sinned,  and  cur- 
sed God  in  their  hearts;  thus  did  Job  continually."  As 
this  was  Job's  continual,  or  constant  practice,  then,  Job's 
sons  must  have  been  very  often  '^espoused,^^  according  to 
the  interpretation  given  to  the  word  "sanctified"  by  the 
Jews  and  Dr.  Gill;  for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he 
would  have  produced  their  authority  for  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  if  that  meaning  had  not  met  with  his  approbation. 

With  respect  to  the  words  translated  "holy,"  and  "un- 
clean," the  Dr.  has  not  produced  a  single  instance,  from 
either  the  Septuagint,  or  the  Greek  Testament,  nor  even 
from  a  Jewish  Rabbi,  where  the  one  is  used  to  signify  legit- 
imately, and  the  other  illegitimately  born.  The  reason 
was,  that  no  such  instance  is  to  be  found,  and  the  inter- 
pretation he  has  given  them,  is  what  he  was  compelled  to 
do  in  defence  of  his  system,  and  from  the  meaning  he  has 
attached  to  the  word  sanctified.  Into  such  absurdities 
and  inconsistencies,  are  even  great  and  learned  men  led, 
when  they  attempt  to  defend  an  unscriptural  system,  which 
they  may  have  adopted  through  prejudice,  or  some  other 
cause. 

Mr.  C.  differs  from  Dr.  Gill  with  respect  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  "sanctified."  Dr.  Gill  applies  it  to  "the  very 
act  of  marriage,"  but  Mr.  C.  to  the  "lawfulness"  of  mar- 
riage itself.  He  agrees  with  the  Dr.  however,  with  res- 
pect to  the  meaning  of  the  words  "holy"  and  "unclean," 


60 

-fis  denoting  iegitimate,  and  illegitimate  cliildren;  but  the 
ground  ofi  which  that  legitimacy  rests,  and  the  source 
whenca  illegitimacy  flows,  is  as  novel  and  extraordinary, 
as  any  thing  to  be  found  in  his  book.  In  p.  62,  he  tells 
us  as  the  meaning  of  the  apogtle  in  this  passage — "that  the 
'•unbelieving  party  was  sanctified  in,  to,  or  by  the  believing 
"party,  and  that  the  children  barn  in  this  connexion  were 
"lawful  or  holy — whereas  should  they  separate^  the  chil- 
*'dren  would  according  to  the  marriage  covenant  be  un- 
"clean  or  imJawful. — Marriage  is  spoken  of  in  the  scrip- 
"tures,:  as  a  covenant  relation  betv/een  the  parties — Mai. 
"2:  14.  She  is  thy  companion,  and  the  wile  of  thy  cove- 
'•nant.  \Kiere  is  then  a  Ifoliness  or  legitimacy  in  th^  rer 
'^lation — there  is  also  an  uncleanness  or  imlaivfulnesi  jn 
"any  departure  from  it.  ^Marriage  is  honourable  in  all,' 
' 'consequently  IcavfiiL  and  the  bed  imdefilecL  The  char- 
"acter  of  the  parties  in  this  relation  aft'ects,  and  has  ever 
*'aftected  their  progeny.  Children  are  either  clean  or  un- 
"clean,  defiled  or  undefiled,  holy  or  unlioly,  lawful  orun- 
"lawful,  according  to  the  conduct  or  character  of  their 
"parents  with  regard  to  this  relation." 

Such,  is  Mr.  C's  interpretation  of  this  passage.  But  as 
he  lias  also,  not  produced  a  single  instance  either  from  the 
Septuagint  or  the  Greek  Testament,  where  the  word  trans- 
lated ^-holy"  when  predicated  of  children  signifies  that 
they  are  legit  linage,  and  that  the  word  translated  "un- 
clean'- when  predicated  of  the  same  signifies,  that  they  are 
illegitimate;  and  as  he  has  not  assigned  any  reasons  why 
the  separation  of  persons,  lawfully  married,  bastardizes 
their  children,  nor  produced  any  statute  from  either  civil 
of  ecclesiastical  law  to  that  support — then,  until  he  does 
this,  he  must  farther  excuse  me  if  I  shall  consider  his  in- 
tei-pretation  of  this  passage,'  as  ano'dier  of  those  wild  and 
illeD;itimate  interpretations  with  wliich  his  book  abounds, 
and  another  proof  that  there  mu^t  be  something  radically 
unsound  in  that  sj^stem,  which  to  defend,  compels  a  man 
to  give  such  distorted  views  of  the  word  of  God, 

Since  then  neither  of  the  foregoing  interpretations  of  this 
passage  can  be  admitted  for  the  reasons  assigned;  thp  ques- 
tion nov/  is,  what  is  its  true  import.^  To  ascertain  this,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  scriptural  meaning  of 
the  Greek  words  '-hegiastai^^^  "'hagia^^^  '^ahatharta,''^ 
translated  "5W2/^/»:/?e.:/,"  '^holijy'^  ''wiclean.^^     With  res- 


61 

pect  to  the  two  first  af  these  words,  i\\e^  are  frequently 
vised  in  the  Septuagint,  whence  they  are  evidentljs*  borrow- 
ed, and  are  applied  to  difterent  persons  and  objects,  in  this 
world,*  and  when  thus  applied,  usually,  if  not  uniformly 
mean,  that  those  pei^sons  and  things  have  been  dedicated, 
appointed,  or  set  apart,  for  some  special  purpose,  let  that 
purpose  be  what  it  may,  good  or  bad,  civil  or  religious. 
An  instance  of  the  verb  kagiazo  being  used  to  signify,  to 
devote  or  set  apart  for  a  purpose  at  lea.st  bad  in  itself,  oc- 
curs in  Judges  17:  3^  where  Micah's  mother  tells  him,  that 
the  money  w  hich  he  had  stolen  from  her,  she  had  "wholly 
dedicated  to  the  Lord,  to  make  a  graven  image,  and  a  mol- 
ten image."  The  words  in  th©  Septuagiiit  are  '*/utgia- 
zousa  hegiasa,^^  which  words,  as  they  are  usually  transla- 
ted in  the  New  Testament  would  be ^  "sanctifying,  I  have 
sanctified  it."  In  the  book  of  Joshua  20:  7,  it  is  said  that 
the  children  of  Israel  ''appointed  Kedesh,  and  other  cities, 
whither  the  man-slayer  might  flee  from  the  avenger  of 
blood."  In  the  margin  of  our  Bibles  it  is  '"'sanctljied'^ 
Kedesh,  &lc.  for  although  the  sevexty  have  not  thought 
proper  to  use  the  verb  hagiazo^  yet  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  it 
is  Kadosh,  which  corresponds  to  it:  and  this  is  an  instance, 
if  not  of  hagiazo,  yet  of  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing, 
of  its  corresponding  word  in  Hebrew  being  used  to  signify 
to  set  apart  for  a  civil  purpose.  In  the  book  of  Leviticus, 
the  laberRacle,  the  temple,  Vvith  their  furniture,  are  re- 
peatedly styled  "holy,"  because  they  vv^ere  set  apart  for  a 
good,  or  religious  purpose.  The  same  idea  is  attached  to 
those  words  when  applied  to  men  whetlier  they  were  con- 
nected v.'ith  religious  subjects  or  not.  Thus  in  Isa.  13:  S, 
the  Medes  and  Persians  are  styled  Jehovah's  "sanctified 
ongks,"  because  they  were  selected  as  the  instruments  vvho 
should  overturn  the  proud,  cruel,  and  idolatrous  city  of 
Babylon^  and  Dr.  Campbell  in  the  4th  part  of  his  prelim- 
inary dissertations,  to  his  translation  of  the  four  Evange- 
lists, has  shewn  by  a  number  of  examples  that  when  those 
words  are  applied  to  men  connected  with  religious  subjects, 
as  the  Priests  and  Levites,  they  do  not  denote  moral  pu- 
rity, but  only  that  they  were  selected  and  set  apart  for  the 
service  of  the  God  of  Israel.  From  tliis  circumstance  he 
Also  justly  infers,  that  although  these  v/ords  are  frequent- 
ly used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote  moral  purity,  yet 
whenever  they  are  predicated  of  persons  who  are  members 


62 

of  the  Christian  churches,  4liej  are  to  be  understood  as 
meaning  only,  that  such  persons  were  ''devoted"  or  con- 
secrated to  the  service  of  God.  The  necessity  of  the 
above  inquiry,  and  its  use  in  ascertaining  the  true  meaning 
of  the  passage  under  consideration  will  appea^r  when  we 
come  to  examine  and  answer  one  of  Mr.  C's  objectionc. 

I  trust  that  I  have  proved  in  my  first  letter  that  the  Jew- 
ish nation  were  constituted  a  church  of  God  by  the  ordi- 
nance of  circumcision,  and  thereby  set  apart  for  his  wor- 
ship and  sei-vice.  It  was  on  that  account,  and  not  for  their 
moral  purity,  that  they  were  styled  ''a  kingdom  of  priests" 
— ''a  holy  nation" — and  "a  Jioly  seedj"  while  the  sur- 
rounding nations  were  styled  '-unclean,"  because  they 
were  not  within  the  pale  of  that  covenant,  and  were  more- 
over worshippers  of  idol  gods.  That  the  surrounding  na- 
tions were  styled  "unclean"  for  the  reasons  assigned,  is 
evident  from  Isa.  52:  1,  where  "the  uncircumcis^d  and 
unclean,  '^re  spoken  of,  and  classed  together  as  the  same 
persons;  and  also  from  Acts  10:  28.  "And  he  [Peter] 
said  unto  them,  ye  know  that  it  is  an  unlawful  thing  for  a 
man  who  is  a  Jew  to  keep  company,  or  to  come  unto  a  man 
of  another  nation,  (alluding  to  Cornelius  an  un circumcised 
Roman)  but  God  hath  shewed  unto  me  tliat  I  should  not 
call  any  man  common,  or  unclean" — "«A:ai/icr?on"— the 
very  word  used  in  the  passage  we  are  now  examining. 

From  these  observations  and  facts,  you  may  now  see 
what  the  apostle  meant  when  he  said  that  the  children  of  a 
married  couple,  one  of  whom  is  a  believer,  ^'are  not  un- 
clean hut  holy.^^ — That  as  the  Jews  were  constituted  a 
church  of  God  by  tlie  ordinance  of  circumcision,  in  conse- 
quence of  v^^hich  they  are  styled  a  '^lioly  nation,  and  a  holy 
seed;"  and  as  their  children  were  admitted  into  the  church 
also  by  the  same  ordinance,  in  consequence  of  which  they 
are  styled  "a  godly  seed,"  and  "the  heritage  of  the  Lord:" 
so,  the  children  of  a  baptized  parent  are  to  be  admitted 
into  the  church  also  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  the  mean 
of  induction  under  the  present  dispensation.  The  phra- 
seology used  by  the  apostle  shews  that  this  was  his  mean- 
ing. The  words  are  the  same  that  are  used  in  the  Old 
Testament,  when  the  Jews  and  their  children  are  mention- 
ed as  being  within  the  pale  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision; 
and  I  fearlessly  affirm  that  no  man  can  account  for  his 
styling  the  children  of  such  a  parent,  "Ao/?/,"  and  "nof 


b3 


imclecm,-^  but  on  the  princi}jk,  that  as  the  children  ot"  the 
Jews  were  entitled  to  churc]i- membership  in  consequence 
of  their  parents  being  circumcised;  so,  the  children  of  a 
baptized  parent  are  entitled  to  the  same  privilege  in  conse- 
quence of  the  professed  faith  of  that  parent.  If  this  was 
not  his  meaning,  then,  he  has  used  language  calculated  to 
deceive  both  Jews  and  Clmstians — ^but  this  is  not  to  be 
admitted,  nor  even  supposed  of  the  inspired  apostle.  To 
this  I  v/ould  only  add,  that  the  interpretation  which  I  have 
given  to  the  words  perfectly  accords  with  what  he  says  in 
3i^-ph.  3:  6,  and  elsewhere;  ' 'that  the  Gentiles  should  be 
fellow  heirs  [with  the  Jews]  and  of  the  same  body,  and 
partakers  of  his  [Jehovah's]  promises  in  Clirist  by  the  Gos- 
pel."—The  intelligent  reader  need  not  be  told  that  in  the 
J^ew  Testament  the  cfet»H;k  is  frequently  styled  ''the 
BODY  OF  Christ." 

■  •  But  Mr.  C.  objects  in  p.  63,  that  the  •  apostle's  design 
in  the  passage  was  to  answer  the  question,  w^hether  mar- 
ried persons,  one  of  whom  was  a  believer,  should  live  to- 
gether as  husband  and  wife,  but  we  adduce  it  as  a  proof  of 
infant  baptism;  and  this  is  a  mode  of  repelling  an  argu- 
ment to  which  he  has  often  recourse,  when  other  means  are 
wp^nting. 

And  what  if  that  was  the  apostle's  main  design.^  Does  it 
follow,  that  a  writer  in  illustrating  and  enforcing  his  main 
question,  may  not  introduce  other  topics  connected  with, 
or  flowing  from  it.  Nothing  is  more  common  with  all 
writers,  sacred  and  profane,  and  the  doctrines  introduced 
thus  incidentally  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  are  to  be  receiv- 
ed with  a.s  much  assurance  of  their  truth  and  importance, 
as  those  contained  in  the  main  question.  The  objection 
is  truly  silly;  and  he  might  as  well  say,  that  it  was  not 
sanctitication,  or  purity  of  heart  that  the  apostle  m.eans  in 
those  words  "who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
spirit,"  because  his  main  design  in  the  verse  was,  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  justification,  or  that  true  believers  in  Christ 
are  rescued  from  that  condemnation  to  which  they  were 
exposed  previous  to  their  belieAdng. — "There  is  therefare- 
now  no  condemnation  to  them,  tiiat  are  in  Christ  Jesus, 
who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit:"  Rom. 
8:  1. 

Mr.  C.  farther  objects  in  p.  64,  tliat  the  argument  for 
infant  baptism  deduced  from  the  passage  now  under  con- 


64 

iideration  ^'proves  too  iniicli/'  for  accordmgtoif,  the  iiPx- 
Iselieviiig  husband  or  ^rife  ought  to  be  baptized  also,  as  it 
is  said  that  they  are  "saiicufied  in,  /o,  or  by  the  believing 
v/ife  or  husband. 

There  is  much  reliance  placed  on  this  objection  by  Bap- 
tist writers,  for  the  reason  mentioned  by  Mr.  C  but  a 
recollection  of  the  question  proposed  to  the  apostle  for 
solution,  and  a  recurrence  to  the  scriptural  meaning  of  the 
word  translated  "scmctifiecP^  will  dissipate  the  objection 
in  a  moment.  I  have  siiewn  that  tliat  word  when  predi- 
cated of  human  persons,  signifies  their  being  set  apart  for 
a  particular  purpose,  let  that  purpose  be  what  it  may.  it 
refers  to  the  marriage  relation  in  this  passage,  and  the  apos- 
tle's reasoning  and  argument  is  obviously  this — that  ti^e 
believing  wife  is  not  to  depart  from  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band, "if  he  is  pleased  to  dwell  with  her,"  because  he  hai'h 
been  set  apart  to  her  as  her  husband  by  the  inarriage  cove- 
nant, which  nothing  but  adultery,  or  wilful  desertion,  or 
death,  can  disannul.  The  same  obligation  is  binding  on 
the  believing  husband  with  respect  to  his  unbelieving  wife. 
He  is  "not  to  put  her  away,"  '^If  she  is  pleased  to  dwell 
with  him,"  for  she  also  hath  been  set  apart  to  him  as  his 
v/ife;  or  as  it  is  expressed  in  Mai.  2:  14;  *^She  is  his  com- 
panion, and  the  wife  of  his  covenant;"  and  let  it  be  here 
recollected,  and  particularly  noticed  that  the  .verb  hegias- 
iai,  or  set  apart  is  not,  as  it  is  rendered  in  our  version,  in 
the  present,  but  in  the  past  tense.  Let  it  also  be  recol- 
lected that  this  is  not  the  idea  attached  to  the  word  by 
Dr.  Gill,  and  other  Baptist  writers.  The  Di".  confines  the 
meaning  of  the  apostle  to  '•Hhe  very  act  of  mary^agc^  "or 
represents  him  as  sa^nng  that  the  believer  "is  legally  es- 
poused" to  the  unbeliever.  This  the  apostle  saith  in  tlie 
terms  **husband  and  wife,"  and  then  directs  their  attention 
to  the  design,  and  if  I  may  so  s])eak,  to  the  very  essence 
of  marriage,  as  a  contract  entered  into  for  life,  and  v/hich 
nothing  but  the  causes  just  now  mentioned  can  destroy. 
This  is  one  part  of  his  ^argument  why  persons  lawfully 
married  should  not  separate,  and  was  designed  to  correct 
the  principles,  and  counteract  the  practices  of  both  Jews, 
and  Gentiles  who  were  in  the  habit  of 'dissolving  the  mar- 
riage covenant  on  very  frivolous  pretences.  But  this  is 
Hot  the  whole  of  his  armament.  In  the  question  ^proposed 
■?v  solution,  op.e  of  the  narties  v/as  a  believer,  and  the  apos. 


63 

tie  takes  occasion  to  enforce  his  argument Tdj  that  circum- 
stance, and   from  that  consideration.     The  children   of 
such,  says  he,  are  not  'hmdean^^^  or  unlit  subjects  for  the 
kingdom  of  God,  or  the  Gospel  church,  as  is  the  case  with 
the  children  of  those  parents  both  of  whom  are  unbeliev- 
ers, but  "/io/?/5"  or  entitled  in  consequence  of  that  parent's 
faith,  to  be  set  apart  for  the  service  of  God  bj  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  that  they  may  become  "a  godly  seed,'* 
by  being  trained  up  by  that  parent  ''in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord. "     This  is  one  of  the  important  ends 
to  be  answered  by  that  ordinance,  and  for  which  it  was 
appointed 5  and  every  one  may  now  see,  that  that  end,  im- 
portant as  it  is,  would  be  frustrated,  at  least  in  part,  by 
the  separatiGn  of  the  parents,  as  it  is  not  unusual,  when 
such  separations  take  place,  for  both  of  the  parents  to  claim 
a  part  of  the  children,  and  those  claimed  by  the  unbeliev- 
er, instead  of  being  trained  up  in  the  knowledge  and  ser- 
vice of  the  true  God,  would  be  trained  up  in  infidelity 
with  all  its  concomitant  evils'.     In  a  word,  as  I  understand 
the  passage  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  the  preceding 
context,  the  apostle  argues  against  the  separation  of  hus- 
band and  wife,  first,  from  i^atd  nature,  design,  and  perpet- 
ual  obligation  of  the  marriage  covenant;  and  secondly, 
where  one  of  tkem  is  a  believer,  that  their  childiren  are 
entitled   in  consecjuence  of  that  circumstance,  to  be  in- 
troduced into  the  church  by  baptism,  that  they  may  be 
trained  up  in  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  but  which 
important  purpose  might  be  frustrated  oy  the  parents  sep- 
arating the  one  from  the  other. 

But  besides  tliis,  it  would  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  the 
objection  to  say,  that  the  cases  of  husbands  and  wives,  and 
of  parents  and  children,  are  by  no  means  parallel.  The 
unbelieving  husband  or  wife  are  adult  persons,  and  capa- 
ble of  believing,  but  this  is  not  the  case  with  their  infant 
children;  and  it  is  their  not  believing  when  they  are  capa- 
ble of  it,  that  unqualifies  adults  for  admission  into  the 
church.  The  relation  subsisting  between  those  two  par- 
ties is  also  very  different.  The  believing  parent,  or  pa- 
rents, are  the  root  whence  their  children  derive  that  fed- 
eral holiness  that  entitles  them  to  church  membership;  for 
as  the  apostle  argues  on  this  very  point  in  Rom.  11:  16; 
"If  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  so  is  the  lump;  if  the  roo^  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches',  but  the  believing  husband  is  ixfv 
*7 


66 

where  styled  the  root  of  the  unbelieving  wife,  nor  the  be- 
lieA^ng  wife  the  root  of  the  unbelieving  husband.  *  To 
which  may  be  added,  that  the  apostle,  in  the  passat^e, 
speaks  of  the  holiness  of  such  children  as  a  doctrine  with 
which  the  church  of  Corinth  were  well  acquainted,  and 
which  they  had  reduced  to  practice  by  devoting,  or  setting 
apart  their  children  to  God  in  the  ordinance  of  baptisiii — 
'•Else  v.ere  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy,*' 
or  members  of  the  visible  church. 

Before  I  dismiss  this  passage,  it  may  not^be  unnecessary 
to  observe,  that  although  I  have  no*  adapted  the  interpre- 
tation usually  given  by  Pedobaptist  writers  to  the  word 
'-'^sandiji&d^^^  yet  there  is  no  material  difference  betwixt 
as.  The  usual  interpretation  is,  that  the  cohabitation  of 
the  believing  liusband  with  the  unbelie\ing  wife,  and  of  the 
believing  wife  with  the  unbelieving  husband  is  lavvful,  or 
now  sanctioned  by  divine  authority.  Tliis  is  indeed  tnie, 
but  it  is  the  consequence  of  the  marriage  covenant  whereby 
they  were  set  apart  to  each  other  as  husband  and  wife,  and 
not  on  account^  the  faith  of  one  of  the  parties.  The  ob- 
jection which  I  have  to  the  usual  interpretation  is;  that  it 
varies  the  meaning  of  the  two  words  "sanctified  and  holyf ' 
gives  to  the  former  of  those  words  a  n^.eaning,  v/hich  I  do 
not  kno\¥  is  once  given  to  it  in  the  Septuagint,  whence  it  is 
borrowed  and  applied;  unnecessarily  substitutes  the  effect 
for  the  cause,  and  thus  obscures  the  reasoning  of  the  apos- 
tle. It  is  true  that  the  former  of  those  words  has  reference 
to  the  marriage  relation,  and  the  latter  to  that  federal  ho- 
liness which  entitles  the  children  of  a  believer  to  baptism: 
but  the  simple  idea  attached  to  both  appears  to  be  the  same 
^-that  the  unbeiie\-ing  husband  and  believing  wife  have 
been  set  apart  to  each  other  for  one  purpose,  and  their 
children  are  to  be  set  apart  for  another  purpose,  the  con- 
text in  the  one  case,  and  the  phraseology  used  in  the  other 
plainly  indicating  what  those  purposes  are. 

I  shall  close  my  observations  on  this  passage  by  just  re- 
marking, that  admitting  that  the  interpretation  which  I 
have  given  to  the  word  '^sanctifiecP^  is  wrong,  and  the  usual 
Pedobaptist  interpretation  is  right;  and  admitting  farther 
that  both  are  wrong,  and  that  the  apostle  meant  something 
else  by  the  expression;  yet  that  mistake  does  not,  cannot, 
affect  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  deducible  from  the 
words,  '-Else  wer^  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are 


br 


they  holy.*'  And  I  again  fearlessly  affirm,  that  no  inter- 
pretation consistent  with  the  scope  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  with  the  settled  meaning  of  their  language,  and 
with  tlie  conduct  of  Jehovah  in  establishing  and  preserving 
a  church  in  the  v/orld,  as  the  designed  birth  place  of  the 
children  of  his  grace,  can  be  attaclied  to  the  whole  pas- 
sage* but  this — ^tbat  as  the  children  of  the  Jev/s  wefe  enti- 
tled to  be  introduced  into  the  church  of  God  by  the  ordi- 
nance of  circumcision,  in  consequence  of  their  parents  pro- 
fessing the  true  religion:  so,  the  children  of  a  parent  or 
parents  professing  Christianity  are  to  be  introduced  into 
the  same  church  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism  5  for  that 
what  is'  now  called  the  Christian,  vras  ingra^d  into  the 
Jewish  church,  I  ti^ust  I  have  fully  proved  in  ihe  forego- 
ing letter. 

That  you  may  have  a  full  and  comprehensive  view  of 
this  important  subject,  I  shall  in  my  next  inquire  into  the 
nature  of  that  repentance  and  faith,  which  is  required  of 
adults,  to  entitle  them  to  admittance  into  the  chiu'ch  by 
baptism. 


LETTER  liL 

FROM  the  view  which  I  have  given  of  the  church  and 
Iter  ordinances  in  my  last  letters,  you  will  have  perceived, 
that  I  do  not  consider  circumcision  and  baptism  as  primarily 
designed  for  the  purpose  of  building  up  believers  in  holi- 
iiess^  but  as  ordinances  designed  for  the  conversion  of  sin- 
ners of  a  certain  character.     My  view  of  the  subject  is 
briefly  this:'— When  a  Gentile,  or  Jew  not  circumcised, 
Vv'as  rationally  persuaded  that  Jehovah  v/as  the  true  God — 
tiiat  the  ordinances  delivered  by  him  to  Moses  were  the 
only  ti]ue  means  of  grace,  and  mediums  of  acceptable  v/or- 
ship — that  it  ^vas  the  command  of  God,  and  his  duty  and 
privilege  to  attend  on  these  meani>  that  he  might  obtain 
grace;  and  under  this  impression  attended  with  diligence 
on  these  means  for  this  important  purpose;  then,  he  was  by 
circumcision  to  be  planted  in  the  church  of  God,  and  his 
children  \\'iih  him;  and  when  he,  or  they,  brought  forth 
the  fruit  of  a  living  faith,  then,  i}>\ey  v/ere  to  be  admitted  to 
the  ordinance  of  the  passover,  and  circumcision  was  to  him 
or  them,  as  to  Abraham  of  old,  "a  seal  of  their  interest  in 
the  righteousness  of  faith;"  far  Abraham  was  constituted 
the  father  of  a  spiritual^  as  v/ell  as  of  a  natural  seed;  Gal. 
3:  29.     And  by  parity  of  reasoning,  when  a  careless  or 
profligate  sinner,  a  heathen,  or  infidel,  under  the  present 
dispensation,  is  morally  convinced  that  he  is  a  tost  and 
perishing  sinner — that  Jesus  is  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners 
— ^that  in  order  to  obtain  an  interest  ia  his  atoning  bloody 
and  the  regenerating  influences  of  his  Spirit,  it  is  the  com- 
mand of  God,  and  his  duty  and  privilege  to  attend  on  the 
means  of  grace  appointed  by  Christ,  and  diligently  attends 
on  these  means  for  tliis  purpose,  then,  that  person  is  to  be 
planted  by  baptism  in  the  church  of  God  also,  and  his  mi- 
nor offspring  with  liim;  and  v/hen  he  or  they  bring  forth  the 
fruit  of  a  justifying  faith,  baptism  is  to  them  also  a  seal  of 
their  interest  in  .the  righteousness  of  faith;  and  they  have, 
moreover,  a  right  to  the  ordinance  of  the  supper,  designed 
to  build  up  believers  in  holiness,  and  to  strengthen  them 
in  their  journey  through  this  world  to  Immanuel's  fair 
land. 


69 

I  have  no  daiibt,  but  that  every  Baptist,  and  some  Pe- 
dobaptists,  crre  now  ready  to  assail  me,  and  sayj  does  not 
one  a]X}stle  say  that  "v/ithoiit  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please 
God^^'  and  another,  that  "faith  without  vvorks,"  or  a  spec- 
ulative f^tidi,  "is  dead:"  and  will  you  say  that  such  a  failhj 
though  attended  with  a  conviction  of  sin,  entitles  a  person 
to  admittance  into  the  church  of  God  ?  To  tins  I  reply,  that 
I  believe  as  firmly  as  any  of  you,  that  there  is  no'vy-ork  re- 
ally good  that  does  not  proceed  from  a  li\xng  faiths  that 
v\dthout  it  there  can  be  no  acceptable  approach  to  the  table 
of  the  Lord)  and  that  vdthout  it,  no  adult  person  can  be 
saved)  but  it  does  not  fallow  that  a  speculative  faith  ac- 
com.panied  »yvdth  a  deep  sense  of  guilt,  may  not,  by  divine 
appointment,  answer  the  end  ef  a  qualification  for  admit- 
tance into  the  visible  church.  We  do  not  dilFer  about  the. 
importance  and  necessitjy  of  a  living  faith)  our  difference 
is  con«erning  the  nature  and  design  of  the  church.  You 
consider  \l  as  designed  for  the  reception  of  regenerated 
persons  only)  I  consider  it  as  designed  not  only  for  the  re- 
ception of  such,  but  as  primarily  designed  for  the  regen- 
eration of  sinners  of  a  certain  character  througli  baptism, 
as  the  appointed  mean.  A  speculative  faith  and  sense  of 
guilt,  in  adults,  is  necessary,  in  the  nature  of  things,  for 
this  purpose.  Considered  a,b3ti'actly,  they  are  not  evil  ex- 
ercises of  mind,  inthem^selves,  and  answer  a  valuable  pur- 
pose as  far  as  they  go)  for  you  will  grant  that  it  is  exceed- 
ingly vv'icked  not  to  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God)  and  not  to  be  sensible  of  our  mis- 
erable situation  as  guilty  and  morally  polluted  sinners. 
Now  tliat  this  faith,  and  this  feeling  entitles  adults  to  ad- 
mittance into  the  church  by  baptism,  I  hope  to  make  ap- 
pear from  an  examination  of  the  terms  of  admittance  into 
it  both  under  the  former,  and  present  dispensations  of 
grace. 

For  this  purpose  I  v.'ould  now  observe,  that  when  it 
pleased  God  that  the  church  should  assume  a  more  visible 
and  compact  form  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  he  expressly 
commanded  that  not  only  that  distinguished  patriarch  him.- 
self,  "with  all  his  seed,""  but  that  all  born  in  his  house,  or 
bought  with  Li.^  money  of  any  3tran,^eir3,  should  be  intro* 
duced  into  the  church  by  circumcision,  declaiiiig  at  the 
same  time,  "that  the  man-child,  the  fiesli  of  whose  fore- 
skin was  not  circumcised,  should  be  cut  ojf  from  the  peo- 


pie  01  God^*'  or  should  not  be  considered  as  belonging  to 
his  church.  I  would  now  ask  my  Pedobaptist  readers,  who 
believe  with  Stephen,  that  "Moses  was  in  the  church  in 
the  wilderness,"  if  you  can  believe  that  ail  these,  with  all 
their  countless  offspring,  to  the  coining  of  the  Messiah, 
were  true  believers 5  but  the  command  was  given  by  God, 
who  knew  the  heart  and  could  not  be  deceived.  There 
is  no  way  of  accounting  for  tliis  matter,  but  by  admitting 
that  circumcision  was  appointed  as  a  mean  for  producing 
'^the  circumcision  of  the  heart."  And,  indeed,  this  view 
of  the  subject  perfectly  corresponds  with  what  Jehovah 
himself  says  of  his  vineyard,  or  his  church,  in  the  5th 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  already  alluded  to.  ''My  beloved  had 
a  vineyard  in  a  very  fruitful  hill;  and  he  fenced  it,  and 
gathered  out  the  stones  thereof,  and  planted  it  with  the 
choicest  vine,  and  built  a  tower  in  the  midst  of  it,  and 
also  made  a  wine -press  therein.  ».flnd  he  looksd  that  it 
siwuld  bring  forth  grapes.^^  Whatever  diiferehce  of  opi- 
nion there  may  be  about  the  meaning  of  the  fencing,  gath- 
eiing  out  the  stones,  the  tov/er,  and  the  wine-press;  one 
thing  is  incontestible,  tliat  all  this  care  and  apparatus  was, 
tliat  the  vine  planted  therein  should  h:  tng  forth  grapes. 
Our  blessed  Lord's  parable  of  the  vineyard,  in  the  ISth 
chapter  of  Luke,  corresponds  also  with  this  view  of  the 
church  under  that  dispensation,  and  is  almost  a  copy  of 
the.  foregoing  allegory.  "A  certain  man,"  says  he,  "A«.i 
a  fig-tree  planted  in  -his  vineyard,  and  he  came,  and 
sought  fruit  thereon  but  found  none.  Then  said  he  to  the 
dresser  of  the  vineyard;  behold  these  three  years  I  came 
seeking  fruit  on  this  fig-tree,  and  find  none;  cut  it  dov/n, 
wdiy  cumbereth  it  the  ground.  And  he  ansv/ering,  said 
unto  him,  I^ord,  let  it  alone  this  year  also,  until  I  dig 
about  it,  and  dung  it:  And  if  it  bear  fruit,  well;  and  if 
not,  then  af.er  that  thou  shalt  cut  it  down."  Let  it  here 
be  recollected,  that  tlie  barren  fig-tree,  in  this  parable,  is 
not  threatened  because  it  was  there;  for  it  is  expressly 
said,  that  it  was  planted  by  the  orders  of  the  owner  of  the 
vineyard — "And  a  certain  man  had  a  fig-tree  planted  in 
his  vineyard:"  but  threatened  because,  planted  and  dug 
around,  and^ftged,  it  did  not  bring  forth  fruit.  How 
opposite  is  this  view  of  the  design  of  the  church,  as  given 
by  God  and  his  Son,  to  that  viev/  which  Mr.  C.  and  even 
some  Pedobaptists,  give  us  of  it:  and  how  opposite  the  con 


n 

duct  of  Baptists  in  planting  tlie  church,  to  that  of  the  hus- 
bandman, when  he  is  about  to  plant  an  orchard,  or  a  vine- 
yard !  The  husbandman  looks  for  young  trees  or  plants  of 
the  fruit -bearing  kind,  that  have  not  yet  brought  forth 
fruit,  and  plants,  and  digs  about  and  dungs  them,  tha.t  they 
may  bring  forth  fruit;  but  should  they  happen  to  find  a 
tree  of  the  fruit -bearing  kind,  bearing  fruit  in  the  wilder- 
ness, they  root  it  up,  and  then  plant  it  in  the  vineyard,  or 
the  church.  Hov/  opposite,  also,  to  what  is  said  in  the 
Scriptures,  cf  Zion,  or  the  church.  "And  of  Zion  it  shall 
be  said,  this  and  that  man  was  born  in  her;"  Psalm  87. 
Jerusalem,  (another  epithet  of  the  church)  which  is  above, 
and  is  free,  is  also  said  to  be  "the  mother  of  us  all :"  but  ac- 
cording to  their  plan,  the  church  is  not  the  mother,  but 
only  the  nurse  of  lier  children;  and  not  an  heir  of  grace 
should  be  '^'^born  again"  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  gi'ace, 
or  the  church,  but  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  darkness,  or 
of  the  devil;  nor  should  "Zion  ev'er  travail,  and  bring  forth 
children."  To  which  I  would  add  the  declaration  of  the 
apostle  respecting  the  good  olive  tree,  or  the  Jewish 
church,  in  the  11th  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans, 
already  adduced.  The  Jews,  wiiom  he  styles  natural 
branches,  were  broken  oif,  he  .tells  us,  by  unbelief;  and 
the  Gentiles,  by  faith,  gi-afted  in  their  stead.  "Well; 
because  of  unbelief,  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  stand - 
est  by  faith..  Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear."  Now  it 
follows  by  fair  consequence,  that  the  faith  by  which  the 
Jews  stood,  was  a  faith  that  could  be,  and  was  lost;  but 
this  is  not  the  case  with  the  faith  of  God's  elect:  and  that 
the  Gentiles  were  grafted  into  the  good  olive  tree,  by  the 
same  kind  of  faith  by  which  the  Jews  w  ere  once  grafted 
in,  and  by  which  they  stood,  but  which  finally  degenerated 
into  what  the  apostle  styles  "unbelief." 

And  when  we  look  at  the  history  of  that  nation,  it  per- 
fectly comports  uith  what  the  apostle  says  in  that  chapter. 
They  fell  into  idolatry  at  various  times;  but  as  they  still 
worshipped  Jehovah  in  conjunction  with  their  idol  gods, 
and  for  which  they  vvcre  severely  and  justly  punished,  at 
different  times,  they  were  not  broken  ofl.  Hence,  then, 
we  find  Jehovah  calling  them  liis  people,  =and  a  people  in 
covenant  with  him;  when  at  the  same  time  he  cliarges  them 
with  the  basest  idolatry.  Hosea  5:  12,  ''My  jjeqple  &sk 
counsel  at  their  stocks*  and  their  stafi*  declareth  unto  them: 


for  fixe  spirit  of  whoredoms  liatli  caused  them  to  err,  raid 
the}^  haTe  gone  a  whoreing  from  under  tlieir  God. "  Thej 
tinisted  in  the  promise  of  God  tliat  he  would  send  them  a 
Redeemer;  but  when  that  Redeemer  came,  "thej  received 
him  not,"  but  cracified  him  as  an  impostor:  in  consequence 
of  which,  with  the  exception  of  a  small  remnant,  "who  re- 
ceived him,*'  they  were  broken  oftTromthe  good  olive  tree, 
and  the  Gentiles  grafted  in  their  stead.  Their  rejecting 
Jesus  as  the  promised  jlessiah,  was  i]\e  unbelief,  on  ac- 
count of  which  they  v/ere  broken  off;  and  the  Gentiles  re- 
ceiving him  as  such,  wa.s  the  faith  on  account  of  which 
they  were  grafted  in,  and  by  which  they  stand;  and  al- 
though this  general  faith  is  not  of  a  saving  kind,  yet  it  is 
involved  in  it,  and  a  saving  faith  cannot  be,  nor  exist  v/ith- 
out  it. 

To  this  it  may  be  objected — tliat  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
being  typical,  or  only '-a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,''' 
was  tiierefore  comparativ'ely  obscure,  and  the  qualifications 
of  admittance  into  the  cliurch  ir.  ore  general  and  undefined: 
but  the  gospel  dispensation  being  the  substance  of  these 
shadovA's,  the  qualifications  are  therefire  more  distinctly 
defined.  Hence  thi-n,' "faith  and  repentance,  if  not  al- 
ways, yet  most  frequently,  are  required  as  prerequisite 
qualifications  of  admittance  into  the  church  by  baptism; 
and  it  has  generally  been  admitted  that  tins  faith,  and  this 
repentance,  mean  a  living  faith,  and  evangelical  repen- 
tance."    I  sliall  now  examine  this  point. 

The  first  passage  which  occurs  on  this  point,  is  the  mem- 
orable address  of  Peter  to  the  Jevv'*,  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, already  adduced  for  ano'her  purpose.  *'Repent, 
says  he,  and  be  ba])t!zed,  every  orie  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Chris*,  for  tlie  remission  of  sin&,  and  ye  shall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  lioiy  Ghost." 

I  need  scarcely  observe  to  those  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  language,  tliat  the  Greek  noun,  metanoia, 
and  the  verb  inetanGeo,  which  are  uniformly  translated  in 
our  Bibles  ''repentance,"  and  "to  repent,"  are  used  in  the 
New  Testament  in  at  least  three  different  senses;  or  rath- 
er, that  in  some  places  they  are  used  in  a  more  extended 
sense  than  in  others.  This  is  the  case  in  all  languages,  on 
account  of  the  poverty  of  words;  and  it  is  from  tlie  drift 
oand  design  of  the  writer  or  speaker,  the  character  and  cir- 
cumstances of  the  hearers,  and  other  considerations,  tlia^ 


}ve  are  to  ascertain  in  what  sense  the  word  is  used.  For 
instance,  inHeb.  12:  17,  the  Greek  noun  metanoia  which 
is  translated  repentance,  signifies  simply  "a  change  of 
mind,"  and  this  is  the  first  or  primary  meaning  of  the 
word.  "Lest  there  be  any  fornicator  or  profane  person^ 
as  Esau,  who  for  one  morsel  of  meat  sold  his  birth-right. 
For  ye  know,  that  afterwards,  when  he  would  have  inher- 
ited the  blessing,  he  was  rejected,  for  he  found  no  place  of 
repentance^  though  he  sought  it  carefully  with  tears."  I 
need  scarcely  observe,  that  the  repentance  mentioned  in 
this  passage,  is  not  predicated  of  Esau,  who  is  styled  *'a 
profane  person;"  but  a  change  of  mind  in  his  father  Isaac, 
who,  by  a  divine  impulse,  had  given  the  blessing  of  the 
birth-right  to  his  brother  Jacob,  because  Esau  had  sold  it 
to  him  for  a  morsel  of  meat.  Again:  it  is  used  to  signify  a 
sorrow  for  sin,  as  exposing  to  punishment.  This,  I  pre- 
sume, is  its  meaning  in  Mat.  12:  41,  when  it  is  said  of  the 
men  of  Nineveli,  "that  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of 
the  prophet  Jonah."  It  is  also  used  to  signify  a  sorrow 
for  sin,  as  not  only  exposing  to  deserved  punishment;  but 
as  offensive  to  God,  and  defiling  in  itself,  and  which  issues 
in  a  reformation  of  heart,  and  of  life.  In  this  sense  it  is 
used,  2  Cor.  7:  10.  "Godly  sorrov/  v»^orketh  repentance 
unto  salvation,  not  to  be  repented  of,"  and  v/hen  used  in 
this  extensive  sense,  there  is  often  some  accompanying 
word,  that  fixes  its  meaning,  as  in  this  passage,  and  in 
Acts  3:19.  "Repent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may 
be  blotted  out." 

With  these  remarks  in  view,  let  us  now  inquire  from 
the  design  of  the  speaker,  and  the  character  and  circum- 
stances of  the  persons  addressed,  in  which  of  these  sen- 
ses, we  are  to  understand  the  verb  metanoeo,  in  the  pas- 
sage now  under  consideration.  The  Jews,  shortly  before, 
had  crucified  Jesus  as  an  impostor,  because  he  afiirmed  that 
he  vv'as  the  Son  of  God,  and  their  promised  Messiah.  Pc;- 
ter,  by  comparing  his  character  with  the  character  given 
of  the  Messiah  by  the  prophets,  succeeded  in  convincing 
them,  that  he  was  really  the  promised  Messiah,  whom  they 
expected.  The  guilt  of  crucifying  as  an  impostor,  their 
^expected  Messiah,  "pricked"  them  to  the  heart;  and  they 
said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  "men  and 
brethren,  what  shall  we  dor"  Peter  says,  Metanoesate; — 
"change  your  minds"  with  respect  to  this  Jesus  of  Naz- 


74 

areth,  whom  you  have  considered  as  an  impostor,  and  crii- 
cined  as  such:  and,  as  an  evidence  that  jour  change  of 
mind  is  real,  ''be  baptized  every  one  of  joii  in  tlie  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  (^  submit  to  that  ordinance  which  he  hath 
appointed  as  the  badge  of  discipleship  to  himself.  And 
to  encourage  tl^em  so  to  do,  he  adds,  "this  baptism  is  for 
the  remission  of  sins,"  or  a  mean  appointed  bj  him,  that 
you  may  receive  the.remission  of  your  sins,  and  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  sanctifying  influences;  for,  as  I  have 
already  observed,  there  is  no-ground  to  conclude,  from 
what  is  said  of  those  who  were  baptized  on  this  occasion, 
that  they  all  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  ex- 
traordinary influences  in  the  gift  of  tongues.  This,  I 
think,  is,  the  plain,  obvious,  and  unsophisticated  meaning 
of  the  passage,  and  of  the  words  "for  the  remission  of  sins." 
And  Vv'hat  now  is  the  meaning  whicli  those  who  contend 
that  the  repentance  here  mentioned  means  an  evangelical 
repentance,  give  to  tlie  words  "for  the  remission  of 
sins.^"  This:  that  baptism  would  be  to  them  a  seal  or  evi- 
dence th.at  tlieir  sins  were  remitted,  and  that  they  had  re- 
ceived the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  would  ask  such  to 
produce  any  similar  phraseology  from  the  New  Testament 
that  conveys  that  idea;  and  further — do  such  think  there 
is  any  person  whqse  mind  has  not  been  perverted  by  a 
system,  who  would  ever  dream  that  tlie  phrase  "for  the 
remission  of  sins,"  means  a  seal  or  evidence  of  the  "re- 
mission of  sins."  When  the  apostle  Paul  wished  to  tell 
us  that  "Abraham  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet 
uncircimicised,"  he  uses  the  words  "sign  and  seal;"  and 
if  Peter,  who  was  under  the  influence  of  the  same  Spirit 
of  truth,  -when  he  addressed  the  Jews,  designed  to  convey 
tli,atidea,  he  could  not  possibly  use  words  more  unsuitable 
than  those  he  has  used  on  tliat  occasion. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  the  Jews  are  said  to  be  pricked 
to  the  heart,  previous  to  their  being  baptized — but  tliis 
surely  is  only  an  evidence  of  their  being  deeply  convinced 
of  sin,  but  not  a  scriptural  evidence  of  an  evangelical  re- 
pentance; and  the  expressions  are  no  stronger  than  those 
of  Cain,  when  he  said,  "my  punishment  is  greater  than  I 
^  can  bear;"  or  tlian  those  of  Judas,  when  he  said,  "I  have 
ginned  in  that  I  have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood." 

It  mav  be  further  objected,  tiiat  m  verses  41,  42,  it  i-: 


said  of  those  persons  "that  thej  glaclij  received  the  word,'' 
and  that  after  then-  baptism  "Vhey  continued  stedfastly  in 
the  apostle's  doctrine,  and  fellowship,  and  in  breiiking  of 
bread,  and  in  prayers. "  If  from  this  it  is^rgiied,  that  they 
were  true  believers,  (and  I  vrili  not  contest  the  point,)  it 
rather  strengthens  than  vv^eakens  my  argiinient,  as  this  is 
said  of  them  after  they  were  baptized;  God,  according  to 
the  words  of  Peter  blessing  his  own  ordinance  for  this  im- 
portant purpose.  And  if  it  is  replied,  that  it  is  said  of 
them  ''that  they  gladly  received  the'  word"  previous  to 
their  being  baptized,  tiiis  is  no  stronger  an  expression  than 
what  is  said  of  the  stony  ground  hearers,  in  the  parable  of 
the  sower;  nor  is  it  strange  that  those  w'no  had  crucified 
the  Lord  of  life  and  of  glory,  as  an  impostor,  would  gladly 
receive  the  news  of  a  mean  for  removing  the  guilt  of  such 
an  atrocious  act. 

There  is  a.nother  circumstance  attending  this  remarka- 
We  event,  which,  v/hen  duly  considered  may  go  far  in  fix- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  word  ''repent."  Peter,  v/e  are 
told,  began  his  sermon  at  the  sixth  hour,  or  at  nine  o'clock 
of  our  reckoning.  How  long  he  preached  vv'e  are  not  told, 
as  we  have  only  a  skeleton  of  his  sermon.  Although  tiiere 
were  one  hundred  ?vnd  twenty  disciples  present,  we  are 
not  toldtliat  any  of  them  vv^ere  clothed  with  the  ministen- 
al  character,  or  had  a  right  to  baptize  except  the  twelve 
apostles.  Now,  as  an  evidence  of  an  evangelical  repen- 
tance could  be  only  obtained  by  conversing  with  those 
persons,  I  Vv^ould  ask,  had  the  iipostles  time  to  converse 
with  three  thousand,  so  as  to  obtain  a  ground  of  hope  that 
they  were  true  penitents,  and  baptize  them  the  same  day 
in  any  mode;  for  let  it  be  recollected,  that  the  Jev/ish  day 
began  and  ended  at  the  setting  of  the  sun.  But  as  their 
saying  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  "Men  and 
brethren,  what  shall  we  do.'^"  and  their  readiness  to  sub- 
mit to  an  ordinance  appointed  by  the  despised  Nazarene, 
v»^as  an  evidence  of  their  change  of  mind  respecting  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.,  and  that  they  were  continced  sinners;  the 
way  w^s  clear  for  baptizing  them  immediately,  according 
to  my  view  of  tlie  subject;  and  there  was  time  enough  for 
the  twelve  to  do  so  by  affusion,  but  surely  not  by  immersion. 

If  to  this  it  is  objected,  t'uat  a  profession  of  the  religion 
CI  Jesus,  was,  in  those  troublous  days,  a  strong  evidence  of 
an  evangelical  repentance;  and  that  the  apostles  were  more 


sr6 

competent  to  decide  on  the  cliaracter  of  men  than  tlielr 
successors^  I  reply — that  there  Vvas  no  ])ersecution  of  tlie 
Christians  at  that  time,  nor  until  after  the  martyrdom  of 
Stephen:  and  the  apostles  in  such  cases  v/ere  not  discer- 
ners  of  the  spirits  of  others.  Pieter  himself  had  not  that 
gift  in  the  case  of  Simon  Magus,  and  only  came  to  i]\e: 
knowledge  that  he  v/as  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the 
bond  of  iniquity,  by  his  ofreringthe  apostles  money  for  the 
purchase  of  the  Spirit's  extraordinary  influences. 

Although  it  belongs  not  immediately  to  the  subject  in 
hand,  nor  affects  my  present  argument^  I  would  observe, 
before  I  dismiss  the  point,  that  the  observations  I  have  made 
on  the  foregoing  passage  may  help  to  fix  the  meaning  of 
the  repentance  connected  wfth  the  baptism  of  John.  It 
was  a  baptism  * 'unto  repentance,"  or  designed  to  produce 
a  change  of  mind  in  the  Jews  respecting  the  Messiah  who 
v/as  shortly  to  appear.  They  expected  him  as  a  magnifi- 
cent conqueror  who  v»^as  to  deliver  them  from  the  Roman 
yoke^  and  w^ere  accordingly  scandalized  at  his  po^r  and 
mean  appearance.  Besides;  they  supposed  that  their  re- 
lation to  Abraham  was  all  that  was  necessary  for  salvation. 
Hence  said  John  to  the  Phiirisees  and  Saducees  who  came 
to  Ills  baptism,  ''O !  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned 
you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  coma.^  bri?ig  forth  therefore 
fruits  meet  for  repentctiice^^^  (or  evidential  of  a  change  of 
mind  in  the  impoitant  point  that  concerns  3'our  salvation} 
•'and  think  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  ■ 
to  our  father:  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is  able  of  these 
stones  to  raise  up  children  to  Abraham."  But  should  it 
be  contended,  that  the  repentance  preached  by  John,  as 
connected  with  his  baptism  was  an  evangelical  repentance: 
this,  however,  must  be  granted,  tliat  it  was  a  baptism 
••unto  repentancf,"  or  designed  to  produce  that  f^reice  in 
the  heart — understand  the  w  ord  as  you  may,  it  affects  not 
my  argument. 

Having  thus  ascertained  the  nature  of  the  repentance 
required  in  order  to  baptism,  I  shall  now  inquire  into  the 
nature  of  that  fiiith,  that  is  required  for  the  same  purpose. 
The  first  place  vre  read  of  faith  as  a  prerequisite  f  )r  baptism 
is  in  the  8th  chapter.  YVe  are  told  in  verses  12,  and  l?^ 
that  when  the  Samaritans  believed  Philip  preaching  the 
diings  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  antl  tlie  name  of 
Jesus,  they  v/ere  baptized  both  men  and  w  omen.  "Theii 
!^imon  hi aiself  believed  also,  and  was  baptized.'' 


,77 

It  maybe  sufficient  for  mv  yjurpose,  here  just  to  observe, 
that  there  is  nothing  said  of  the  faith  on  account  of  which 
tliese  persons  were  baptized  that  fixes  it  down  to  a  living 
faith.  The  reverse  is  strongly  implied;  for  the  expression 
is,  that  ''when  tliey  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Chi-ist,"  or  when  they  professed  an  assent  to  the  general 
doctrine,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  only  Saviour  of 
sinners,  ''they  w^ere  baptized  both  men  and  women.'' 
And  indeed  the  character  and  conduct  of  Simon  affords  a 
strong  presumption,  tliat  Philip  had  not  required  of  him  an 
evidence  of  a  living  faith;  for  can  it  be  supposed,  that  a 
person  possessed  of  this  faith  could  suppose  that  the  Spirit's 
extraordinary  influence  could  be  purchased  by  money? 

But  those  who  differ  from  me  on  this  subject,  no  doubt, 
are  now  readv  to  say,  there  is  a  Baptism  recorded  in  this 
very  cliapter— that  of  the  eunuch  of  the  queen  of  Ethiopia, 
wherein  the  faith  recjuired  is  fixed  in  its  meaning  to  a  liv- 
ing faith,  for  Philip's  vvords  are— '-If  thou  believest  vath 
ail  thine  heart,  thou  niayest." 

Before  I  would  make  any  remarks  on  tl\is  memorable 
transaction,  it  is  necessary  to  observe,  that  the  question  is 
not,  have  true  believers  a  right  to  baptism?  for  they  have 
a  right  to  all  the  ordinances  of  the  dispensation  of  grace 
under  which  they  live:  and  the  ordinances  v.hich  were  ap- 
pointed and  designed  for  the  conviction  and  conversion  of 
sinners,  were  also  designed  for  building  them  up  in  holiness 


bapt] 

racter  of  Simon  ^lagus;  and  more  than  probable,  the  cha- 
racter of  the  Samaritans;  for  it  is  said  of  them,  "that  they 
all  gave  heed  to  his  sorceries,  Jind  said — this  man  is  the 
great  power  of  God."  But  what  now  is  the  character 
v/hich  is  given  in  this  chapter  to  the  eunuch  of  the  queen 
of  Ethiopia?  If  not  a  Jew,  he  was  a  proselyte  to  the  Jew- 
ish relig,ion,  and  he  had  travelled  from  Ethiopia  to  Jeru- 
salem, for  the  purpose  of  worshipping  the  true  God  accor- 
ding to  his  own  appointments.  How  was  he  employed  in 
his  chariot  on  his  return?— Reading  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Jewish  propliets.  What  was  his 
conduct,  when  Philip,  a  poor  man,  and  probably  in  mean 
apparel,  joined  the  chariot,  and  said,  one  v/ould  think  ra- 


Iher  abruptly,  ^Hmderstaiidest  thou  what  thou  reaclestr"  I)id 
he  frown  upon,  and  repulse  him  as  an  inipcrtment  inquisi- 
tor? No:  he  candidly  acknowledged  his  ignorance,  and 
manifested  the  teachable  disposition  of  a  child  of  God,  by 
desiiing  Philip  to  come  up,  and  sit  with,  him  in  the  chariot, 
for  the  purpose  of  instmcting  him  in  the  meaning  of  what 
he  read.  I  have  indeed  frcquentlj  heard  from  the  pu'plt, 
of  the  '^ conversions^  of  this  eunuch;  but  for  my  ovrn  part,  I 
can  see  the  features  of  an  humble  and  zealous  worshipper 
of  the  true  God,  in  the  short  history  given  of  him.  And 
if  we  must  have  the  word;  his  "conversion"  was  of  the 
secondary  kind,  from  tiie  Jewish  to  the  Christian  dispen- 
sations of  the  grace  of  God.  Yv'hilst  at  Jerusalem,  he  had 
heard,  no  doubt,  from  the  c]>ief  priests,  that  Jesus  was  a 
vile  impostor,  and  was  returning  to  his  own  country  with 
that  pernicicms  impression.  God,  in  his  good  providence, 
sent  Philip  his  way  in  a  miraculous  manner,  to  undeceive 
him,  and  to  preach  Jesus  to  him  as  th.e  Messiah  that  w^as  now 
come.  It  is  implied  in  what  fuiloA\s,  that  Philip  unfolded 
to  him  the  nature  and  design  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
aiid  the  obligations  on  all  who  acknowledge  Christ  as  Lord 
and  Master,  to  be  baptized  into  his  nauie.  ''And  as  tliey 
went  on  their  w-ay,  they  came  to  a  certain  water,  and  the 
eunuch  said,  see  here  is  water — what  doth  hinder  me  to  b& 
baptized.*'  And  Philip  said,  if  tliou  belicvest  with  all  thine 
heart,  chou  mayest.  And  lie  answered  and  said,  I  believe 
that  Jesus  Chiist  is  the  Son  of  God. 

And  now,  vv^hat  is  tliere  in  this  interesting  historical 
fact,  that  militates  against  the  doctrine  T  am  defending? 
Vv'as  there  any  thing  more  in  his  profession  than  a  sincere 
■ncrsiiasion,  that  Jesus,  ^^hom  he  had,  no  doubt,  been  led 
^0  consider  as  an  impostor,  was  tlie  Son  of  God;  whicli  I 
need  not  tell  you,  a  man  m.ay  believe,  and  thousands  do 
sincerely  believe,  and  yet  are  destitute  of  the  faith  of 
God's  elect.  The  argument  of  those  who  contend,  from 
this  passage,  that  a  profession  of  a  living  faith  is  required 
in  order  to  baptism,  is  founded  on  the  assumption,  t!iat 
this  man  w^as  a  sinner,  and  that  "to  believe  with  all  the 
licart"  means  a  justifying  faith;  as  it  is  elsewhere  said, 
"that  with  the  heart  inan  believeth  unto  righteousness.'' 
But  admitting  that  he  had  been  a  sinner,  I  must  contend, 
that  to  believe  with  all  the  heart,  imports  nothing  more 
rhan  ninccviiy^  and  I  need  not  say,  that  we  sincerely  be- 


iieve,  on  competent  e\4dence,  a  hundred  historical  factsV 
as  Avell  as  that  Jesus,  is  the  Son  of  God:  and  it  is  not  so 
much  believing  "with  the  heart,''  as  believing  unto  right- 
eousness, that  dei^i^cs  the  character  of  faith  in  that  pas- 
sage. Thus  a  mi^iiite  consideration  of  that  interesting 
baptism,  instead  of  miiilatiDg  against,  supports  the  posi- 
tion I  am  defending. 

The  observati-fiiB  made  on  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch, 
are  equally  applicable  to  the  baptism  of  Lydia,  recorded 
in  the  16th  chapter.  Her  conversion  as  an  unregenerated 
person,  is  also  of:en  spoken  of,  as  implied  in  these  words, 
'•the  Lord  opened  her  heart,  that  she  attended  to  the  things 
spoken  by  Paul."  Although  there  is  not  perhaps  as  full 
evidence  of  her  saintshlp  as  that  of  the  eunuch;  yet  there 
is  that  said  of  her  that  aifbrds  strong  presumptive  evidence 
tliat  she  was  a  saint  previous  to  her  being  baptized.  It  is 
said  of  her  that  she  ''worshipped  God,"  and  was  one  of 
those  women  who  resorted  to  the  river  side  for  prayer^ 
Avhich  v>'as  usual  with  the  i^ious  Jev/s  when  in  heathen 
lands.  "By  the  rivers  of  Babylon  there  we  sat  doM^n,. 
yea,  we  v/ept  v«hen  we  reniembered  Zion:"  Pscdm  139. 
Frc;m  these  considerations,  then  it  appear?,  that  if  not  a 
Jewess,  she  vt'as  a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  the 
expression,  "that  the  Lord  opened  her  heart,  that  she  at- 
tended to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul,"  can  mean  nothing 
more,  than  that,  like  the  eunuch,  she  was  convinced  by  the 
preaching  of  Paul,  of  the  change  of  the  dispensation  of 
grace  from  Judaism  to  Christianity,  in  consequence  of 
which  "she  was  baptized  and  her  house." 

I  shall  now  return  to  an  examination  of  tlie  baptism  of 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  recorded  in  the  9th,  and  of  Cornelius  and 
his  fiiends,  mentioned  in  the  following  chapter.  With  re- 
spect to  Saul,  there  is  nothing  said  of  his  faith  and  repent- 
ance previous  to  his  being  baptized.  But  fi-om  what  he 
tells  us  in  the  22d  chapter,  Ananias  said  to  him  on  thai 
occasion,  the  inference  I  think  is  just,  that  in  that  ordi- 
nance he  received  the  remission  of  his  sins.  "And  nov 
why  tarriest  thou.?  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wask 
AWAY  THY  sixs," — ail  expresslou  similar  to  that  of  Petei 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  "Be  baptized  every  one  of  you 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gilt  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. "  It  appears  that  Saul,  from  the  time  he 
was  struck  down  on  his  journey  from  Jerusalem  to  Da- 


80 

mascus,  %yas  hi  the  spirit  of  bondage,  until  after  his  bap- 
tism. Such  was  the  agony  of  his  soul,  tiiat  he  neither  eat 
nor  di-ank,  for  three  days;  and  it  would  seem  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  words  of  Ananias,  that  in  that  ordinance  he  re- 
ceived the  internal  evidence  of  the  Spirit,  of  the  washing 
of  regeneriition,  and  of  liis  interest  in  Christ;  for  we  are 
told,  that  immediately  after  his  baptism,  "he  received 
meat  and  was  strengthened." 

What  I  have  said  respecting  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tar- 
sus, is  the  case  with  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his 
friends.  There  is  nothing  said  about  their  faitJi  and  re- 
pentance previous  to  their  being  baptized.  True,  indeed, 
it  is  said  that  while  Peter  was  preaching  to  them,  and  pre- 
vious to  their  baptism,  ''the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  that 
heard  the  word;"  but  we  are  expressly  told  that  it  was  in 
his  miraculous  gift  of  tongues.  "And  they  of  the  circum- 
cision which  believed  were  astonished;  as  many  as  came 
with  Peter;  because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also,  was  poured 
out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the}''  heard  them  speak 
with  tongues,  and  magnify  God:"  And  I  need  scarcely 
observe,  that  tiiis  gift  was  conferred  on  some  w4io  were 
destitute  of  saving  grace,  and  remained  so.  But  admit- 
ting that  his  saving  influences  were  given  at  the  same  time 
yith  his  extrai>rdinary  gifts,  what  is  the  consequence? 
This  only — that  true  believers  ha.ve  a  right  to  tlie  ordi- 
jiance  of  baptism,  wiierever  found,  as  Abraham  had  to  the 
ordinance  of  circumcision. 

j  The  baptismof  the  jailer,  recorded  in  the  16th  chapter, 
How  remains  only  for  examination.  We  are  told,  that 
klarmed  by  the  earthquake  that  shook  the  foundations  of 
i\e  prison,  "he  called  for  a  liglit,  sprang  in,  and  came 
trembling,  and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Silas,  and  brought 

tem  out  and  said,  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved .^  And 
ey  said,  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt 
lie  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake  unto  him  the 
vord  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And 
1b  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their 
slripes,  and- was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway." 
'  Let  it  now  be  observed,  that  there  is  nothing  said  of  this 
jjian  previous  to  his  baptism,  "his  trembling,  and  falling 
down  before  Paul  aiid  Silas,"  that  is  indicative  of  any 
4iing  more  than  a  deep  sense  of  guilt;  and  not  stronger 
Ihau  that  of  Cain  and  Judas,    And  although  Paul  and  Si- 


81 

las  exhort  him  to  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
lie  might  be  savefl,  they  do  not  say  tliat  this  faith  was  a 
prerequi site  qualification  for  baptism.  *  When  ' '  the j  spake 
the  \vo!'d  of  the  Lord  to  him,  and  to  ail  that  were  in  his 
house,"  they,  no  doubt,  explained  the  nature  and  obliga- 
tions of  baptisms  and  that  he  received  througli  that  ordi- 
nance, as  the  appointed  medium,  ''peace  in  believing,"  and 
'^joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  apparent  from  what  is  said  of 
him  after  being  baptized,  as  it  is  translated— "And  when 
he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  befqre 
them,  and  rejoiced^  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house." 
It  may  perhaps  not  be  unnecessary,  to  observe  in  this  place, 
that  although  the  Jev/s,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  and  this  man,  received  the  remission  of  sins,  and 

*  "That  the  word  '^saved"  in  tliis  passage,  must  be  understood  in 
the  limited  sense  I  have  mentioned  in  the  second  letter,  will  I 
think  be  admitted  for  the  reasons  there  assigned.  It  may  be  worth 
while  to  enquire  whether  the  word  ''believe,"  should  not  be  un- 
derstood in  a  restricted  sense  also;  and  if  any  unanswerable  rea- 
son can  be  assigned;  why  we  must  understand  by  it  a  justifying- 
faith,  and  not  as  importing  only  an  assent  to  the  scriptural  propo- 
sition that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Lord,  and  the  only  Saviour  of  sin- 
ners, which  a  person  may  do,  and  yet  be  destitute  of  the  faith  of 
God's  elect.  In  this  inquiry  the  character  of  the  jailer  as  a  very 
ignorant  heathen  should  be  kept  in  view,  and  the  inquirer  v/ill 
ask,  if  the  jailer's  mind  was  furiiished  at  that  instant  with  such 
previous  knowledge,  as  is  necessary  in  the  nature  of  things,  for 
understanding  such  a  complex  idea  as  justifying  faith;  and  if  Paul 
and  Silas  would  not  deem  it  necessary  to  inculcate  first,  an  assent 
to  the  elementary  preposition  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  Saviour 
of  sinners,  before  they  proceeded  to  inform  him  of  the  necessity 
of  receiving  him  as  a  prophet,  priest  and  king,  in  order  to  salva- 
tion. In  this  manner,  I  presume.  Missionaries  to  the  heathen  pro- 
ceed. In  this  manner  Paul  him.self  proceeded  with  the  people 
of  "Athens;  and  if  he  and  his  colleague  proceeded  in  this  way  on 
that  occasion,  then  it  follows, tl"iat  by  the  faith  reccnunended,  they 
did  not  mean  a  justifying  faith,  but  an  assent  to  the  elementaiy 
principle  that  Jesus  is  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners,  and  as  what 
would  entitle  himself  and  family  to  be  brought  under  the  means 
of  salvation  by  baptism.  That  they  d'd  afterwards  unfold  the 
nature,  and  inculcate  the  necessity  of  a  jiistifying  faith  is  implied 
in  what  we  are  told  in  th.e  following  verse,  "And  they  spake  unto 
him  tlie  Avord  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.'*" 
The  intelligent  reader  will  liovrevcr  see,  that  supposing  they 
meant  a  justifying  faith,  that  circumstance  does  not  affect  my  pre- 
sent argument,  nor  my  views  of  the  nature  and  desig-n  of  the  Qiv 
dinance  of  baptism,  as  exhibited  in  these  letters. 


peace  in  believing,  through  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  yet 
it  \\as  not  the  case  with  Simon  Magns.  The  duty  is  ours, 
and  we  must  leave  it  to  a  sovereign  God,  v.hen,  and  to 
whom,  he  will  bless  his  own  ordinance. 

Having  thus  examined  all  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  does  not  appear  that  Ihei^  is  one  of 
them  wherein  the  .profession  of  a  living  faith,  and  of  an 
evangelical  repentance,  was  required  of  the  person  baptized. 
And  not  only  is  this, the  case?  but  1 4iave  showed  that  thei-e 
is  clear  intrinsic  evidence  in  these  pUce.?,  that  baptism  is 
spoken  of  as  a  mean  of  grace  far  convinced  adults.  "  And 
to  this  I  would  add,  that  the  element  of  water  to  be  iis^d 
in  this- ordinance,  is  a  strong  presumptive  evidence  tliat  it 
was  designed  for  that  purpose.  In  i]\Q  ordinance  of  the 
supper,  bread  and  wine,,  that  strengthen  and  refresh  tlie 
vxaried  body,  are  tlie  appointed  symbols;  an  evidence 
that  it  was  designed  f'.)r  strengthenina;  and  refreshing  the 
tru^  believer  in  his  journey  to  Immanuel's  land:  but  in 
baptism,  the  symbol  is  water,  whicli  was  designed,  and  is 
used,  for  washing  away  the  filth  of  the  body,  an  evidence 
i  f  that  it  w^as  designed,  throuo;!!  the  inSuences  of  the  Spirit, 
I  to  wash  away  the  filth  of  the  soul:  and  I  know  not  what 
else  Chvist  could  mean  when  he  says,  "Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  John  3:  5. 

From  the  uiwle  it  appears,  tiiat  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism v/ere  designed  for  the  same  purpo.-ies — that  the  latter 
has  taken  tlie  place  of  the  former;  and  that  ijbe  ordmante 
of  the  supper  has  taken  the  place  of  the  Jewish  passover. 
Th.at  baptism  has  taken  thQ  place  of  circuuici-iion,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  epistle  to  the  Colosr-^lans  £:  10, 11.  "Ye  are 
complete  in  him  who  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and 
power:  in  v;hom  also  ye  are  circumcised  v,  ilh  the  circum- 
cision made  withtrat  hands,  5?/  the  circumcison  of  Christ." 
Tiiat  the  circumcision  made  vv^ithout  hands,  m£>ans  renova- 
tion of  heart,  will  not  be  disputed;  but  this,  the  apostle 
says,  was  effected  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  as  the 
mean;  and  what  he  meant  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ, 
he  tells  us  in  the  next  words — ^"buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism;" another  proof,  you  will  perceive,  that  baptism,  be- 
sides being  the  appointed  mean  of  initiation  into  the  cimrch 
at  present,  v^^as  designed  for  producing  renovation  of 
heart.     That  tlie  Lord's  supper  has  taken  the  place  of  tiie 


passover,  is  also  evident,  from  1  Cor.  5:  f,  8,  already  ad- 
duced. *'For  even  Christ,  our^iasspver,  is  sacrificed  for 
us;  therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast ^  not  with  old  leaven,  nei- 
ther %ith"the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness,  but  with 
the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth. "  From  this 
passage  it  appears,  that  the  pa^schal  lamb,  in  the  manner 
of  hisdeatli,  not  only  typified  Christ,  the  lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  for  the  sins  of  many,  but  the 
manner  presciibed  fo^  eating  it,  with  unleavened  bread, 
signified 'the  necessity  of  ''sincerity  and  truth;"  with  the 
absence  of  "malice  and  wickedness,"  in  eating  the  Lordl^s 
supper,  to  which  the  apostle  evidently  alludes  in  this  chap- 
ter under  the  metaphor  of  a  feast — "Let  us  keep  the 
feast,"  &c. 

Mr.  C.  however,  and  other  Baptist  writers  object;  by 
saying;  that  there  are  some  circumstances  in  which  cir- 
cumcision and.  baptism,  and  the  passover  and  the  Lord's 
supper  do  not  resemble  each  other,  and  that  the  pass(Wer 
was  eaten  by  little  children,  as  well  as  by  adults. 

Types  were  designed  to  resemble  the  persons,  or  things 
typified,  sometimes  in  one  point  only,  and  sometimes  in 
more  than  one,  and  to  object  to  circuoicision  and  the  pass- 
over,  as  types  of  Baptism  and  tlie  Lord's  supper,  because 
there  are  some  circumstances  in  which  those  ordinanciis  do 
not  agree,  argues  an  ignorance  of  the  natu-re  and  desig^i  of 
types.  Indeed,  according  to  the  objectioi)^  tliere  cannot 
be  any  type  ^^  hatever;  foj'  although  there  are  some  circum- 
stances in  which  tv/o  persons  or  things  agree,  yet  there  are 
circumstances  in  which  they  necessarily  disagree.  And 
that  little  children  eat  of  the  passover,  is,  perhaps,  rather 
an  assumption  than  a  fact.  The  directions  of  Jehovah  res- 
pecting this  circumstance  a,re  these— "And  it  shall  come 
to  pass  when  your  children  shall  say  unto  you,  wha.t  mean 
you  by  this  service.^  that  je.  shall  say,  it  is  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Lord's  passover,  who  passed  over  the  liouses  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  in  Egypt,  when  he  smote  the  Egyptians 
and  delivered  our  houses."  Exodus  12:  26,  27.  Here, 
then,  these  children  were  such  as  were  capable  of  asking  a 
pertinent  question,  and  of  receiving  and  understanding  a' 
suitable  answei".  But  admittingthat  they  did — what  then.^ 
The  passover  was  not  only  typical  of  Clu'ist,'  our  passover, 
or  of  the  Christian  passover,  but  u  as  also  commemorative 
of  the  deliverance  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egyptian 


84 

bondage;  little  children  therefore  might  v/ith  propriety  eat 
of  it,  as  it  had  respect  to  that  event,  while  the  intelligent 
adult  saw  in  it  a  more  interesting  deliverance — the  redemp- 
tion of  guilty  men  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God. 

But  to  all  this  it  is  objected,  that  Christ  himself  has  said, 
'•that  he  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
And  what  is  the  argument  deduced  from  these  words  that 
a  living  faith  is  indispensably  necessary  in  adults  to  entitle 
them  to  baptism?  This — the  faith  here  mentioned  is  of  the 
saving  kind,  because  salvation  is  promised  to  it;  but  it  is 
prefixed  to  baptism;  therefore  a  saving  faith  is  necessary 
for  baptism.  Well,  according  to  this  manner  of  reason- 
ing, baptism  is  necessary  for  salvation,  for  it  is  also  prefix- 
ed to  salvation.  Tiiis  vvill  prove  too  much,  not  only  for 
Baptists,  but  for  Pedobaptists,  who  differ  from  "me  on  this 
point  But  these  important  words  have  a  meaning;  and 
M'hat  is  it.^  This  simply — that  tiue  believers  have  a  right 
to  baptism,  if  not  baptized,  and  sliall  be  saved;  not  because 
they  have  been  baptized,  but  because  they  liave  believed. 

It  may  be  also  objected,  that  my  view  of  tlie  subject 
opens  the  door  of  the  clmrch  to  all  indiscriminately.  The 
reverse  is'  the  case.  It  excludes  the  grossly  ignorant,  and 
immoral,  and  admits  only  the  inqairing  and  pra3dng  sinner: 
for  to  n'dj  that  a  person  who  has  seen  his  lost,  and  perish- 
ing state  as  a  sinner,  and  his  need  of  an  interest  in  the  ato- 
ning blood  of  Christ,  and  oftlse  renewing  influences  of  his 
Spirit,  will  not  pray  for  these  all- important  blessings,  and- 
•^forsake  his  evil  ways",  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  It  is 
said  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  while  in  the  spirit  of  bondage, 
"Behold  lie  prayeth  I" 

It  may  be  f^irther  objected,  that  at  best,  it  is  calculated 
to  fill  the  church  v.ith  unregenera. e  persons.  Tiiose  vvho 
make  the  objection,  in  making  it  still  keep  in  their  eye  tlieir 
own  views  of  the  church,  as  designed  for  the  admittance  of 
regenerated  persons  only,  or  persons  professing  that  they 
have  "passed  from  deatli  unto  life;"  and  Mr.  C.  tells  us 
tliat  in  the  debate  with  Mr.  W.  he  read,  in  support  of  tliis 
position,  the  addresses  of  tlie  apostles  in  their  epistles  to 
the  different  churches,  wherein  they  uniformly  address 
them  as  saints  or  regenerated  persons.  He  also  tells  us, 
that  he  highly  esteems  the  writings  of  the  late  Dr.  Campbell 
of  Aberdeen — that  ]ie  considers  him  as  one  of  the  gi-eatest 
critics  of  modern  times — and  that  in  the  debate  with  Mr. 


85 

AV.  he  read  extracts  from  his  preliminary  dissertations, 
and  critical  notes  in  support  of  part  of  his  system.  Now 
if  he  will  turn  to  that  part  of  Dr.  Campbell's  dissertations 
already  referred  to,  Dr*  Campbell  will  tell  him  what  every 
good  linguist  also  knows  to  be  the  fact;  that  there  are  two 
words,  kadosh,  and  chasid,  in  Hebrew,  and  hagios,  and 
hosios^  in  Oreek,  which,  although  they  are  uniformly 
translated  holy,  are  very  diSerent  in  their  real  meaning — 
that  kadosh  in  Hebrew,  and  its  corresponding  word  hagios 
in  Greek,  when  applied  to  persons,  means  only  persons 
"devoted  to,  or  destined"  for  a  sacred  purpose;  and  that 
chasid  in  Hebrew,  and  its  corresponding  word,  hosios  in 
Greek,  has  reference  to  character,  and  means  '*pious,  or 
devout. "  And  if  lie  will  turn  to  his  Greek  Testament,  he 
\'?ill  find,  that  the  apostles  never  address  the  members  of 
the  clmrches  to  wliich  they  wrote,  as  hosiois,  or  pious,  but 
as  hagiois  en  Christo,  or  persons  who,  by  bein^  baptized, 
were  devoted  to  a  sacred  use,  or  under  obligations  to  be- 
come pious,  or  pure  in  heart.  This  judicious  criticism, 
which  will  not  be  disputed,  disvsipates  the  objection,  over- 
turns Mr.  C's  view  of  the  structure  of  the  church  of  God, 
and  all  the  arguments  he  has  used  to  support  that  view,  and 
you  will  perceive,  exactly  accords  with  that  view  of  it,  I 
have  attempted  to  exhibit  and  defend. 

As  for  tliat  portion  of  the  church  which  consists  of  com- 
municants or  those  who  profess  godliness,  the  view  I  have 
^ivenis,in  my  opinion,  best  calculated  to  preserve  its  hon- 
our and  purity.  As  it  is  expected,  and  in  some  churches 
required,  of  those  who  are  baptized  on  the  contrary  sys- 
tem, that  they  come  to  the  ordinance  of  the  supper;  and 
from  the  strong  desire  that  some  unbaptized  persons  have 
to  be  accounted  church  members,  and  of  some  parents  to 
iiave  their  children  baptized,  a  snare  is  laid  in  their  way, 
to  profess  having  experienced  what  they  never  felt,  and 
thus  improper  persons  are  introduced  amongst  communi- 
cants, and  the  ensnared  person  eats  and  drinks  judgment 
to  himself,  at  fne  table  of  the  Lord.  Let  this  important 
subject  be  strictly  examined,  and  let  tlie  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  candidly  and  carefully  tell  those  wliom  they  bap- 
tize, or  parents  who  have  their  children  baptized,  that  they 
are  thereby  brought  under  the  strongest  obligations  to 
^void  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  '*and  to  seek  the  Lord 
^.nlil  they  find  him;"' — that  although  by  baptism  they  and 
9 


8G 

their  child reu  are  planted  in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord,  and 
what  is  styled  by  Chiist,  "digging  about  and  dunging"  is 
secured  to  them  by  the  seal  of  God  himself;  yet  they  are 
not  to  rest  contented  until  they  experimentally  find  the 
tiling  signified  by  baptism,  the  washing  of  regeneration  by 
the  Spirit  of  the  Most  High.  And  if  they  or  their  children 
when  they  grow  up,  fall  into  the  pollutions  of  the  world, 
or  become  careless  in  their  attendance  on  the  means  of 
grace,  then,  let  the  discipline  of  the  church,  in  admonition 
or  rebuke,  be  exercised  upon  them;  and  if  they  refuse  to 
be  reclaimed,  let  them  be  finally  cast  out  of  the  church. 
I  know,  and  regret  that  this  is  not  usually  the  case;  hence 
then  a  mistaken  view  of  the  design  of  the  churcli,  together 
vnt\\  the  negligence  6f  her  officers,  has  led  Mr.  C.  and  oth- 
ers to  represent  infant  baptism  as  a  useless  and  inefficient 
ordinance,  and  his  own  distorted  views  of  the  subject,  has 
also  led  him  to  pour  unsparing  contempt  on  that  '-church 
of  God  whicli  he  purchased  v/ith  his  own  blood." 

As  I  have  said,  that  a  belief  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of 
God,  and  the  only  sa%iour  of  sinners,  accompanied  with 
a  sense  of  guilt,  entitles  an  adult  person  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism;  I  have  been  asked  by  way  of  objection, — "If 
God  does  require  of  sinners,  any  other  faith  and  repen- 
tance, than  a  living  faith,  and  evangelical  repentance." 

To  prevent  misapprehensions,  I  will  repeat  what  I  have 
said  more  than  once,  that  no  other  faith  and  repentance, 
but  a  living  faith  and  evangelical  repentance,  can  be  of 
avail  to  the  saving  of  the  soul.  But  that  God  does  require 
a  faith  and  repentance  which  are  not  of  an  evangelical 
character,  in  order  to  our  exercising  a  living  faith,  and  an 
evangelical  repentance,  and'  for  other  purposes,  is  appa- 
rent to  myself,  not  only  from  express  declarations  in  his 
holy  word,  but  from  what  that  word  tells  us  is  the  way  in 
which  the  Divine  spirit  creates  the  soul  anew  in  Christ 
Jesus.  For  instance;  the  apostle  James,  I  think,  mentions 
with  some  degree  of  approbation,  a  faith  which  is  not  of 
the  saving  kind.  "Thou  believest  that  there  is  one  God; 
thou  doest  ivellj  the  Devils  also  believe  and  tremble:"  2. 19. 
The  design  of  the  apostle  in  the  preceding  context  is  to 
shew,  that  a  speculative  faith,  as  it  is  sometimes  called, 
cannot  avail  to  the  justification  of  the  sinner,  nor  afford  a 
ground  of  hope  that  we  are  in  a  justified  state.  Why?-— 
Because,  as  he  tells  us,  "it  is  dead,"  or  inoperative  as  re- 


87 

gards  good  works, — "'even  so  faith  if  it  hath  not  good 
works  is  deady  being  aione."  But  lest  the  inference 
iiiouid  be  drawn  tliat  this  faith  is  of  no  avail  Vv  hat  ever,  nor 
required  of  us  by  God,  he  tells  those  who  have  exercised 
it,  that  so  far  tliey  have  ^'done  zvell;''^  but  then,  they  should 
remember  that  the  fallen  angels  for  whom  no  redemption 
was  provided,  "believe  also  that  there  is  a  God" — and 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  son  of  God,  (Mat.  8;  29.)  and  yet 
tremble  under  his  righteous  displeasure^  and  consequently 
that  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  tliis  speculative  faith  on- 
ly, should  aspire  after  that  faith  "that  works  by  love,  pu- 
rifies the  heaii;,  and  overcomes  tlie  world."  Since  then, 
it  is  so  far  "e^-e/Z"  in  sinful  men  to  believe  that  there  is  a 
God,  and  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  it  is  surely  required 
cf  them  by  God,  v/ho  requires  nothing  but  v.hat  is  right, 
and  forbids  nothing  but  is  wrong.  And  to  this  I  will  add, 
what  I  have  already  observed,  that  although  this  specula- 
tive faith  is  not  of  a  saving  character,  jet  a  saving  faith 
cannot  be,  nor  exist  without  it. 

That  there  is  also  a  repentance,  or  sorrov/  for  sin  as 
exposing  to  deserved  punishment,  required  by  God,  and' 
required  too,  in  order  to  the  sinner's  exercising  that  "re- 
pentance unto  salvation  that  needeth  not  to  be  repented 
of,"  is  apparent  also  from  express  scripture  declarations. 
In  Eph.  5;  14,  the  apostle  introduces  Jehovah  himself  as 
addressing  sinners  thus — "Av/ake  thou  that  sleepest,  and 
arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  give  thee  light." 
Here,  i\ic  sinner  who  is  said  to  be  morally  dead,  is  called 
upon  to  arise  from  this  death,  and  to  go  to  Christ,  that  he 
may  obtain  light.  But  in  order  to  this,  he  is  previously 
called  upon  to  "«z6'«/t:e,"  or  to  realise  his  danger  and  ex- 
posure to  wrath,  as  what  is  necessary  in  the  nature  of 
things,  to  dispose  him  to  prize  the  salvation  by  Christ: 
for  Christ  himself  has  said,  "that  he  came  not  to  call  the 
righteous,"  or  those  who  suppose  they  are  righteous,  "but 
sinners,"  or  those  who  are  sensible  they  are  sinners,  "to 
repentance." 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  that  saints  are  said  "to  sleep," 
when  the  principle  of  spiiitual  life  is  inactive  in  their  souls; 
the  passage  may  therefore  be  addressed  to  such.  Saints 
while  in  the  foregoing  state,  are  indeed  said  "to  sleep;" 
but  they  are  never  said  to  l3e  dead — "dead  in  trespasses 
iipA  sins."     On  the  contrary  they  are  said  to  be  "alive  from 


88 

the  dead" — "and  alive  to  God  through  Jesus  Chiist  out 
liOrd:"  and  it  is,  I  think,  properly  observed  by  Dr.  Guise, 
in  a  note  on  tliis  verse,  that  as  the  death  of  the  body  is  in 
the  scriptures  frequently  compared  to  sleep^  the  apostle- 
ilierefore  compares  the  moral  death  of  the  sinner,  to  sleep 
also,  because  both  states  are  states  of  insensibility.  And 
to  this  I  v/ouldadd,  tha*  the  exposition  which  I  have  given 
to  the  foregoing  ]-«issage&,  is  agreeable  to  what  Christ  him- 
self tells  us  is  the  w^ay  in  which  the  spirit  applies  the  re- 
demption purchased  by  his  bloody  to  those  a-duU  persons 
whom  the  father  designed  to  save.  ''And  when  tlie  spirit 
is  come,  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  of  righteousness, 
and  of  judgment" — m*  first  of  sin,  and  then  of  righteous- 
ness, and  then  of  judgment.  Since  then,  this  is  the  way 
ia  which  the  spirit  operates  on  the  sinner*s  heart  for  the 
important  purpose  of  disposing  him  to  believe  in  Christ  to 
the  saving  of  his  soul;  it  follows,  that  it  is  the  sinner's  du- 
ty to  be  thus  convinced;  but  what  is  his  duty  is  required  of 
God;  nor  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  divine  spirit  produces 
any  change  in  the  sinner's  heart  that  is  not  required  of 
God,  and  required  too  far  important  purposes. 

I  have  been  also  asked  by  way  of  objection — ''Does  not 
God  in  his  holy  word  call  upon  the  sinner  to  submit  imme- 
diately to  the  sceptre  of  his  grace,  in  Christ;  and  is  it  not 
the  duty  of  the  sinner  to  submit  immediately  when  Jehovah 
calls;  and  if  so,  where  is  the  room  for  the  exercise  of  that 
faith  and  repentance  which  you  say  is  a  prerequisite  qual- 
ification to  entitle  an  adult  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism?" 
—Jehovah  does  indeed  thus  call  upon  sinners;  and  it  is  the 
sinner's  duty  ta  submit  immediately  to  the  gracious  call. 
But  it  is  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  the  divine  call,  or 
command,  that  the  sinner  should  realize  iiis  danger  and 
spiritual  maladies;  else,  as  I  have  shewn,  he  ccmnot,  or 
rather  he  ivill  not  obey  the  call.  All  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  philosophy  of  tlie  human  mind,  do  know,  that  al- 
though its  operations  are  more  rapid  than  the  forked  light- 
ning, yet  it  does,  and  necessarily  must  attend  to  one  sub- 
ject of  thought,  before  another.  Nor  will  any  person  say, 
that  under  the  agency  of  the  abnighty  and  omniscient  spirit, 
a  sinner  may  not  be  illuminated,  convinced,  and  converted 
in  a  moment;  nor  would  I  say  1  hat  this  may  not  be  the  case 
with  some  individuals.  But  I  may  safely  say,  that  this 
h^s  not  been  the  case  widi  the  great  body  of  tho&e  wKa 


89 

have  been  "called  from  darkness  to  God's  marvellous 
light."  The  3000  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  Jail- 
or of  the  city  of  Philippi,  appear  to  have  been  convinced 
and  converted  in  the  space  of  a  few  hours.  Saul  of  Tar- 
sus appears  to  have  been  tliree  days,  and  three  nights  in 
the  spirit  of  bondage,  and  many  of  the  cliildren  of  God, 
have  been'not  only  days  but  months  in  the  same  situation. 
As  this  then,  is  the  usual  way  in  v^^hich  sinners  are  brought 
to  Christ;  and  as  it  is  the  way  of  the  spirit  to  convince 
them,  first  of  sin,  and  then  of  righteousness,  and  then  of 
judgment,  before  he  bows  their  wills  to  the  sceptre  of 
graces  then,  as  I  have  already  observed,  the  belief  ai  all 
tiiose  doctrines  respecting  the  spotless  purity,  and  inflexi- 
ble justice  of  God;  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  depravity  of  their 
own  hearts  which  they  received  while  passing  from  death 
unto  life :  and  all  the  anguish  of  soul  which  results  from  a 
belief  of  those  truths,  were  required  of  them  by  God,  and 
required,  as  1  think,  for  the  purpose  of  qualifying  them  for 
adjiiittance  into  the  church  by  baptism,  as  one  of  the  means 
through  vv^liich  the  almighty  spirit  disposes  them  *'to  re- 
ceive and  rest  upon  Ciirist  for  salvation,  as  offered  in  the 
Gospel. " 

Perhaps,  some  may  be  ready  to  say,  that  I  have  been 
proving  truisms.  I  will  only  observe,  that  the  two  last 
objections  have  been  seriously  urged  against  the  doctrine 
advocated  in  this  letter;  and  by  men  too,  of  no  contempti' 
ble  understandings — It  was  therefore  that  I  noticed  them. 

Finally;  it  has  been  objected,  that  my  views  on  this, 
point  are  contrary  to  the  confession  of  faith  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  which  together  with  the  Catechisms  say; 
that  adults  must  "profess  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to 
him,"  before  they  can  be  baptized,  and  by  this  faith  the  ob- 
jectors understand  a  living,  or  justifying  faith. 

This  objection  has  been  brought  on  the  presumption  that 
I  have  adopted  that  confession,  as  the  confession  of  my 
faith,  which  is  true;  and  consequently  partakes  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  argumentum  ad  Iiominem,  which  although  of- 
ten a.  sorry  argument,  is  yet  sometimes  deserving  of  atten- 
tion. The  creed  of  the  Presbyterian  church  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Baptism  is  exhibited  in  the  28th  chapter  of  their 
confession  of  faith,  which  I  shall  now  examine  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining,  if  by  the  faith  mentioned  therein,  we 
must  understand  a  living  faith;  for  let  it  be  cemembered^ 
*9 


■j6 

that  both  ill  that  chapter,  and  in  the  catechisms  where  faith' 
is  mentioned  in  connection  with  baptism,  it  is  faith — sim- 
plj — ^indefinitely — or  faith  without  any  qualifying  epithet. 

In  the  first  section,  Baptism  is  said  to  be  to  the  baptized 
person,  "a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  re- 
generation, of  the  remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up 
to  Gocl  through  Jesus  Clirist,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

It  is  admitted  that  baptism  is  a  seal  of  all  this  to  the 
ti^ie  believer  who  is  baptised,  but  surely  not  to  the  bapti- 
zed unbeliever;  and  that  persons  who  were  not  true  believ- 
ers at  the  time,  were  baptized  by  the  apostles  cannot  be 
denied — vv  itness  Simon  Magus,  and  Ananias,  and  Sapphi- 
ra.  I  am  persuaded  that  the  objectors  do  not,  cannot  un- 
derstand this  section  in  any  other  sense  than  that  which  I 
have  mentioned 5  or  as  only  declarative  of  the  benefits  re- 
sulting to  the  true  believer  from  his  being  baptized  into 
the  name  of  Jesus;  and  therefore  no  argument  can  be  le- 
gitimately drawn  from  it,  that  a  living  faith  is  required  of 
adults  in  order  to  their  baptism.  This  will  be  still  more 
apparent  when  we  examine  the  remaining  sections. 

The  second  section  tells  us,  "that  the  water  is  to  be  ap- 
plied in  that  ordinance,"  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost— The  third  ''that  dipping 
into  the  water  is  not  necessary;  but  baptism  is  rightly  ad- 
ministered by  pouring,  or  sprinkling  water  on  the  subject^* 
— And  the  fourth,  "that  not  only  those  tliat  actually  pro- 
fess faith  in,  and  obedience  to  Christ,  but  the  infants  of 
one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to  be  baptized." 

In  the  fifth  section  it  is  said,  "that  although  it  be  a  great 
sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance,  yet  gmce  and 
salvation  are  not  so  inseparably  annexed  unto  it,  as  that 
no  person  can  be  regenerated  without  it,  or  that  all  that 
are  baptized  are  undoubtedly  regenerated, " 

Here,  baptism  is  expressly  alluded  to  more  than  once, 
as  a  regenerating  ordinance,  or  a  mean  of  regeneration; 
and  it  is  distinctly  said,  that  grace  and  salvation  are  an- 
nexed to  it,  although  not  inseparably — this,  we  have  also 
said  in  a  preceding  part  of  this  letter.  It  follows  then, 
that  by  the  faith  mentioned  in  the  fourth  section,  as  a  pre- 
requisite qualification  for  baptism,  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand a  saving  faith,  as  that  faith  does  not  precede,  but  is 
a  consequent  of  regeneration.  John  1:  11 — 13 — "He, 
rChrist]  came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  lum  not 


91 

But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to 
become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his 
name;  which  were  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  vvill  of  the 
tlesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God." 

And  that  by  the  '^grace''  mentioned  in  the  fifth  section, 
and  which  is  "annexed*'  to  baptism,  we  are  to  understand 
not  confirming  but  regenerating  grace,  is  apparent  from 
the  circumstance,  thai  in  the  sixth,  or  following  section,  it 
is  promised  alike  to  adults  and  infants — "The  eificacy  of 
baptism  is  not  tied  down  to  the  moment  of  time  wherein  it 
is  administered;  yet  notwithstanding  by  the  right  use  of 
this  ordinance,  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but 
really  exhibited  anti.  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such 
(whether  of  age  or  infants)  as  that  grace  belongs  unto,  ac- 
cording to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will,  in  ins  appointed 
time.'' 

Here  again,  baptism  is  spoken  of  as  an  efficacious  ordi- 
nance, or  an  ordinance  through  which  the  Holy  Ghost  cdn- 
veys  regenerating  grace  to  those,  whether  adults  or  in- 
fants, whom  a  sovereign  God  designed  t-o  save,  and  at  that 
time  that  his  infinite  wisdom  .sees  best.  So  far  then  are 
our  views  on  this  point  from  being  contrary  to  the  confes- 
sion cf  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  they  are  sanction- 
ed by  it;  and  those  objectors  who  may  have  adopted  that 
confession,  or  yet  what  is  called  the  Westminster  confes- 
sion of  faith,  may  nov/  see,  that  on  this  point  they  have  de- 
parted from  that  "form  of  sound  words. "  But  this  is  not 
all:  our  views  are  agreeable  to  the  words  of  Peter  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  "Be  baptized /or  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  but  how 
their  system  can  be  brought  to  quadrate  with  the  apostle's 
words,  is,  what  I  cannot  see. 

W  ith  respect  to  the  profession  of  "obedience  to  Christ," 
which  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  faith,  we  cannot, 
in  consistence  with  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  two  prece- 
ding sections,  understand  by  it  any  tiling  more,  than  a 
profession  of  the  person  who  is  to  be  baptized,  that  he  is 
resolved  in  a  dependance  on  divine  aid,  "to  cease  to  do 
evil,  and  to  learn  to  do  well;"  to  respect,  and  to  attend 
upon  the  ordinances  of  divine  institution;  together  v/ith  a 
submission  to  the  discipline  of  the  church  of  Christ.  I  will 
only  add;  that  these  duties  resulting  from  the  privilege  of 
being  brought  by  baptism  into  the  visible  church,  are  to  be 


92 

considered  as  msans  connected  with  baptism  itself^  through 
which  a  sovereign  God  communicates  regenerating  grace 
to  those  adults  and  infants,  whom,  his  infmite  wisdom  did 
not  see  best  to  regenerate,  at  the  moment  when  they  were 
baptized.  The  remaining  section  of  this  chapter  only 
teajs,  ''that  the  sacrament  ^f  baptism  is  but  once  to  be  ad- 
ministered, to  any  persori,^' 

I  shall  in  the  next  letter,  consider  t\\e  mode,  or  as  Mr* 
C.  expresses  it,  the  action  of  baptism. 


LETTER  IV. 

HAVING  in  my  last  letters  bnefly  reviewed  Mr. 
C's  book  so  far  as  respects  the  church  of  Gody  and  the  right 
of  infants  to  baptism,  before  I  enter  upon  a  review  of  the 
mode^  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  present  you  again  with  some 
of  his  rules  respecting  positive  institutes,  that  you  may 
see  how  far  he  is  himself  governed  by  them  on  this  part  of 
the  subject.  **In  positive  institutes  we  are  not  authorized 
to  reason  what  we  should  do,  but  implicitly  to  obey — and 
can  there  be  a  positive  institution  without  a  positive  pre- 
cept or  precedent  authorizing  it?"  It  may  also  not  be  amiss 
to  set  before  you  the  99th  question^  of  his  new  catechism, 
with  its  ansv/er.  "  Q.  How  do  you  view  all  Pedobaptists 
with  regard  to  this  ordinance  of  baptism?  Can  you,  accor- 
ding to  the  Scriptures,  consider  them  baptized  persons,  or 
do  you  consider  them  as  unbaptized?  A.  There  is  only 
one  baptism,  and  all  who  have  p.ot  been  immersed  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  after  professing 
the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  have  never  been  baptized,  and  are 
now  in  an  imbaptized  state.''^ 

You  will  have  perceived,  that  according  to  this  answer, 
not  only  infant  baptism,  but  the  baptism  of  adults,  if  not 
by  immersion,  is  a  nullity,  and  consequently,  that  there  is 
no  church  of  God-*-no  lawful  ministry,  amongst  Pedobap- 
tists; and  you  will  reasonably  expect,  that  for  the  purpose 
of  sliowingus  our  exceeding  great  error,  according  to  his^ 
own  rule  made  and  provided  for  this  case,  he  will  tell  us 
the  chapter  and  verse  in  which  it  is  said,  that  baptism  is  ta 
l>e  administered  by  immersion  only,  and  that  baptism  ad- 
ministered in  any  other  mode  is  null  and  void:  and  further, 
you  will  also  expect,  the  words  of  this  chapter  and  verse 
to  be  so  clear,  and  distinctly  defined,  as  to  admit  of  no  oth- 
er meaning,  and  like  axioms  to  involve  their  own  evidence. 
And  is  not  this  the  case?  Not  at  all;  his  rule  of  "positive 
precept  and  precedent,"  is  only  to  be  urged  when  little 
children  are  to  be  driven  out  of  the  church,  where  they  had 
been  planted  by  Jehovah  himself;  but  abandoned,  as  of  no 
manner  of  use,  when  the  right  of  women  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, or  immersion,  is  the  ques-tian.     He  reasons  too,  and 


94 

infers,  like  any  Pedobaptist:  and  instead  of  telling  us  where 
the  ''positive  precept  or  precedent*'  for  immersion  is,  he 
appeals  to  lexicographers  and  biblical  critics,  in  support  of 
his  opinion.  You  will  not  understand  me  as  condemning 
a  recourse  to  the  foregoing  authorities,  when  under  tlie 
flirection  of  a  sound  critical  knowledge:  but  you  cannot 
but  see  how  inconsistent,  if  not  ridiculous,  it  is  in  Mr.  C. 
who  tells  us,  that  "in  positive  institutions  v/e  are  not  au- 
thorized to  reason  what  we  should  do,  but  implicitly  to 
obey;"  and  more  especially  Vv'henhe  tells  us,  that  the  very 
existence  of  the  church  depends  upon  baptism  being  ad- 
ministered by  immersion,  as  it  is  admitted  on  both  sides 
that  baptism  is  the  mode  of  initiation.  But  let  us  hear 
him  and  Mr.  W.  on  the  ^oint. 

Mr.  C.  tells  us  that  Mr.  W.  alleged  in  favour  of  admin- 
istering baptism  by  pouring;  the  Avater  on  the  subject,  that 
the  Greek  verb  bapfizo,  vv'hich  is  translated  in  our  Bibles 
baptize,  does  not  necessarily  signify  to  dip^  but  to  sprinkle 
or  pour — that  the  v/ord  is  used  in  this  sense  in  Luke  1 1 :  39, 
'*A  certain  Pharisee  asked  Jesus  to  dine  with  him,  and  he 
went  and  satdov/n  to  meat;  and  when  the  Pharisee  sav/  it 
he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed  (ebapisthe)  before 
dinner:" — that  it  was  not  his  whole  body,  but  his  hands,, 
that  were  alluded  to  in  this  passage : — that  this  was  done 
by  pouring  water  on  the  liands;  and  as  a  proof,  he  mention- 
ed what  is  said  of  Elisha,  that  he  poured  water  on  the 
hands  of  Elijah.  Mr.  W.  also  alleged,  that  "bafto," 
the  root  of  "baptizo,"  is  sometimes  used  in  this  sense, 
and  as  a  proof  of  this,  mentioned  the  case  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, whose  body  is  said,  Dan.  4:  33,  (ebaphe)  to  be 
wet  with  the  dev/  of  heaven;  but  this  could  not  be  by  im- 
mersion, but  by  the  dew  being  sprinkled  upon  him. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  replied  by  producing,  1.  The  opinion  of 
Dr.  Campbell  of  Aberdeen,  who,  in  his  notes  critical  and 
explanatory  to  his  translation  of  the  four  evangelists,  trans- 
lates the  verb  BAPTizo  ''to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immei^e.*' 
2.  The  authority  of  Scapula,  who  also  renders  the  word 
''to  plunge,  to  immerse,  to  dye,  because  colouring  is  done 
hy  immersion."  3.  The  atithority  of  Stockius,  who  says, 
that  "generally  it  obtai?is  by  the  natural  import  of  the 
word,  the  idea  of  dipping  in,  or  immersing.  Specially 
and  properly,  it  signifies  to  immerse,  or  to  dip — figurative- 
ly it  signifies  to  \\ash,  because anv  tiiinsc  that  is  v. ashed  is 


usually  dipped  or  i:ninersc-d  in  water.-'  And  to  these  he 
adds  the  authority  of  Parkhiirst,  who  renders  it,  1.  "To 
dip,  immerse,  or  plunge  in  water.  2.  To  wash  one's  self, 
to  be  wasiied,  wash.,  i.  e.  the  hands  by  immersion  or  plun- 
ging in  water.  3.  To  baptize,  to  immerse,  or  to  wash  ^\^th 
water  in  token  of  purification."  ^Vhence  ]Mr.  C*  infers 
that  immersion  is  the  uniform  meaning  of  the  terra,  and 
'*that  there  cannot  be  found  one  solitary  instance  in  all 
the  dictionaries  of  the  Greek  language,  nor  in  classical 
use,  tliat  hapto  or  baptizo  signifies  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour." 
— Let  this  be  remembered. 

Witli  respect  to  his  first  authority.  Dr.  Campbell,  who 
says,  "that  although  the  words  baptein^  and  batizein  often 
occur  in  the  Septuagint  and  Apocr}j>hal  writings,  and  are 
always  rendered  to  dip,  to  Vvash,  and  to  plunge,  the  in- 
stance adduced  by  Mr.  W.  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  body 
being  icet  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  is  a  proof  that  he  v/as 
mistaken.  But  this  is  not  all.  Tlie  late  Rev.  John  P. 
Campbell,  of  Kentucky,  in  his  book,  in  answer  to  Mr. 
Jones  y>.  29 — 36,  by  a  minute  examination,  and  detailed 
\iew  of  all  the  places  where  the  words  are  used  in  the 
Septuagint,  has  proved  incontrovertibly,  that  their  prima- 
ry meaning  in  that  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  is, 
"to  smear,  to  tinge,  to  wet  with  some  liquid;"  and  that  to 
immerse  is  only  a  secoiidary  meaning;  and  that  the  vul- 
gate  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  Vvitii  Pagninus,  Buxtorf, 
and  Tromius,  critics  of  high  reputation,  render  the  words 
in  the  foregoing  primary  meaning.  Mr.  C.  has  animad- 
verted on  some  places  in  this  book;  but  for  very  pi-udential 
reasons  has  overlooked  that  part  of  it  I  have  alluded  to. 

As  to  his  second  authorities.  Scapula  and  Stockius, 
as  I  have  not  access  to  them  at  present,  I  must  allow  Mr. 
C.  all  the  force  he  can  derive  from  their  opinion.  With 
respect  to  Parkhurst,  his  last  authority,  he  at  first  garbles 
his  definition  of  the  word  baptizo;  though  for  what  reascni, 
I  will  not  positively  say,  he  afterwards  acknowledges  it. 
Mr.  C's  quotation  from  Parkhurst's  Lexicon,  is,  '»to  dip, 
to  immerse,  to  plunge  in  water:"  but  Parkhurst's  words 
are,  1.  To  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge  in  water:,  but  in  the 
^€iv  Testmnent  it  occurs  not  strictly  in  this  sense,  unless 
so  far  as  this  is  included  in  sense  1  a7id  3,  below;  aiid  this 
js  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  definition  of  ScHLEusxERy 
one  of  the  best  and  most  esteemed  le?dcographers  of  mod- 


96    . 

eintiitss.  His  definition  is  this.  Baptizo*-^!.  Properly 
to  immerse  and  dye,  to  dip  into  water,  "//t  this  sense^ 
indeed,  it  is  ?iever  used  in  the  New  Testament,  but  it  is  so 
used  with  nome  frequency  in  Greek  authors,"  *'as  it  is  not 
nnfrequent  to  dip  or  immerse  something  in  water  in  order 
to  w^h  it."  As  the  limits  assigned  to  this  letter  will  not 
permit  me  to  enter  into  a  fuller  investigation  of  the  word 
B*APTizo,  in  the  New  Testament,  I  would  only  furtlier  ob- 
serve, that  from  the  definitions  of  it  given  by  Parkhurst  and 
\Schleusner,  confessedly  the  ablest  lexicoj2;raphers  of  mod-^ 
em  times,  it  fully  appears,  that  although  it  was  used  fre- 
quently by  Greek  writers  to  denote  immersion,  yet  it  is 
never  used  in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament:  and  I 
boldly  affirm  that  there  is  not  a  good  Greek  linguist  who 
has  read,  or  will  read,  Mr.  J.  P.  Campbell's  book  but  will 
be  fully  convinced  that  this  is  the  case.  Nor  is  it  strange 
that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  should  affix  a 
meaning  to  it  different  from  the  Greek  writers  of  the  day. 
The  Greek  writers,  says  Schleusner,  used  it  not  unfre- 
quently,  though  not  always,  to  denote  washing  by  immer- 
sion 5  but  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use  it  in  a 
figurative  sense,  denoting  the  application  of  water  to  the 
body  as  a  religious  rite,  and  a  divine  ordinance  appointed 
for  the  purpose  of  initiating  into  the  church,  and  for  ob- 
taining the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  purifying  influences 
of  tlie  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  said  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, '^'Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It 
follows  then,  tliat  unless  other  words  and  circumstances 
connected  with  baptism  determine  the  mode  of  applying 
water  to  the  subject,  the  word  haptiz:o  cannot. 

But  in  a,ddition  to  the  foregoing  lexicographers  and  crit- 
ics respecting  the  meaning  of  the  verb  baptiza,  Mr.  C.  tells 
us  that  the  Greek  prepositions  en,  eis,  ek,  and  apo,  which 
are  connected  with  it,  show  that  its  meaning  is  "to  im- 
merse;" as  en  and  eis,  he  says,  signify  in  and  into;  and 
ek  and  ap)o,  ''out  of."  In  Matthew  3:  6,  en  is,  indeed, 
translated  in;  "and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins."  But  in  the  11th  verse,  and  in  Mark 
1:  8,  and  in  John  1:  26,  it  is  translated  "with,"  <'I  in- 
deed baptize  you  with  (en)  water."  But  v/hy  might  not 
en  be  translated  in,  in  the  11th  as  well  as  in  the  6th  verse. 
To  have  done  so.  would  have  Biade  the  passage  say  some- 


%7 

tiling  worse  than  nonsense.  The  whole  verse  reS^s  tliiis : 
*^'I  indeed  baptize  you  with  (en)  water  unto  repentance: 
but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  tlian  I,  wliose  shoes 
I  am  not  worth}^  to  bear;  he  shall  baptize  jou  with  (en)  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  I  need  not  tell  you  what  a 
gross  impropriety  it  would  liave  been  to  have  tranflated 
the  latter  clause  of  this  verse  thus:  he  shall  baptize,  or  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  C.  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in 
fire.  But  not  only  does  this  preposition  signify  in  and 
with,  but  according  to  Schleusner,  and  Parkhurst,  one  of 
Mr.  C's  high  authorities,  it  signifies  also  at^  7iig%  by;  and 
Mr.  J.  P.  Campbell  has  detailed  several  passages  from 
the  Septuagint,  and  nine  or  ten  from  the  New  Testament, 
wherein  it  must  necessarily  be  so  understood.  Mr.  C. 
however,  says,  p.  154,  that  J.  P.  Campbell  "has  found 
one  or  two  passages"  only^  where  en  may  be  translated 
"a/;"  and  his  reducing  tv/enty  instances  to  one  or  two, 
tells  us  with  wliat  caution  his  quotations  from  the  writings 
of  other  raen  are  to  be  received. 

The  observations  I  have  made  respecting  the  preposition 
£71,  are  also  applicable  to  the  preposition  eis.  It  signifies 
hi,  into,  at,  near,  towards.  And  although  in  Mark  1 :  9^ 
it  is  translated  in,  in  connexion  with  baptism;  and  in  Acts 
8:  39,  into;  yet  every  reader  may  see,  that  in  the  first  of 
these  places,  it  may  with  propriety  be  translated  at,  and 
in  the  second,  to;  and  Mr.  Campbell,  of  Kentucky,  has 
detailed  in  his  book,  p.  5S,  no  less  than  nineteen  or  tvven- 
ty  passages  from  tlie  Nevv^  Testament  Vv^here  it  must  ne- 
cessarily signify  at,  near,  to,  or  towards. 

The  same  observations  are  alss  applicable  to  thje  prepo- 
sition ek.  It  is  equally  indefinite  in  its  meaning.  Mr. 
C.  indeed,  tells  us,  that  Mr.  Moor,  professor  of  Greek  in 
tlie  University  of  Glasgow,  defines  it  '^as  denoting  that  a 
person  departs  out  of  a  place,  or  that  any  thing  is  taken 
out  of  another  thing."  But  Parkhurst,  another  of  liis  au- 
thorities, defines  it  thus:  ''■ek  1,  governing  a  genitive  case, 
1.  It  denotes  motion  from  a  place,  out  of,  from;^^  and  ac- 
cording to  tliis  definition,  the  words  "ei  foit  hudafos,^^  in 
Acts  8:  39,  which  are  translated  "they  came  up  out  of  the 
water,"  should  have  been  rendered,  "they  came  up  from 
the  water" — but  we  will  meet  with  this  passage  again. 

As  for  the  other  preposition  apo,  which  is  used  in  con- 
nexion with  baptism,  Mr.  C's  autiiority,  professor  Moor, 
10 


98 

defines  it  ''the  departure,  or  the  dislance  of  one  person  or 
ilmigfrom  the  pliice  of  another."  This  is  the  word  that 
is  us~ed  in  Mark  1 :  10,  wliere  it  is  said  of  Jesus,  that  '•'com- 
ing out  of  (apo)  ihe  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened;" 
and  according  to  Mr.  €'s  own  authority,  sliould  have  been 
translated  "coming /ro?5J  the  water  he  saw  die  heavens 
opened."  And  although  it  may  be  used  in  other  senses, 
yet'j/'rom"  is  its  primary  meaning,  and  as  Mr.  Campbell, 
of  Kentucky,  justly  observes,  ''if  g/jo,  when  used  in  con- 
nexion vv^itli  baptism,  be  rendered/rom,  then  ekj  in  parallel 
pass.nges  must  mean  ihe^  same  thing;  and  ei.s,  and  e/?,  con- 
joined with  them  in  the  same  description,  cannot  express 
jnorethan  «/,  or/o."  p.  53.  »• 

.But  with  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  above  quotation, 
Mr.  C.  is  highly  displeased,  and  in  the  fulness  of  his  soul, 
and  the  exuberance  of  his  zeal  for  soundness  in  the  faith, 
he  charges  him  and  Peter  Edv/ards,  who  made  the  same 
observation,  "with  shutting  the  gates  of  heaven  and  of  hell 
])y  their  criticisms,"  and  virturdl^^  saying,  "that  when  a 
person  is  in  the  house  he  is  only  at  the  door;  and  wlien  in 
bed  is  only  at  the  side  of  it:"  after  which  he  demolishes 
this  monstrous  doctrine,  and  refutes  these  dangerous  criti- 
cisms, by  the  following  irresistible  argument.  '-Excellent 
critics — O  bigotry!  O  prejudice!  Not  Egyptian  darkness 
was  half  so  fatal  to  Egyptian  eyes,  as  tliy  sable  sceptre  to 
the  eyes  of  the  mind."'  p.  154,"^  5. 

NoM',  the  whole  of  this  powerful  argument  is  dissipated 
in  a  moment,  wluin  tlie  reader  reflects  that  it  was  not  the 
meaning  of  the  prepositions  en  and  m,  as  connected  with 
heaven  and  hell,  but  as  connected  with  baptism,  that  the 
late  Mr.  Campbell  alludes  to  in  the  above  quotation.  He 
does  not  say  that  "m  OuRy^Nox"  does  not  signify  into 
heaven;  nor  that  "ei.s  Geennan"  does  not  signify  into 
.hell:  but  he  says,  that  as  Bethabara  was  not  a  river,  but 
a  place  in  the  vicinity  of  Jordan;  then,  as  "en  Bethabara,''^ 
in  John  1 :  26,  necessarily  means  at  Bethabara,  so,  en  Jor- 
danee,  and  eis  ton  Jordanen,  in  Mark  1 :  5 — 9,  should  have 
been  translated  not  in^  but  at,  Jordan,  because  those  pas- 
sages have  reference  to  the  same  thmg — the  place  where 
Jolui  was  baptizing:  tliat  as  ''apo  ton  hudatos,'^^  in  Mat.  3: 
6,  necessarily  means  ''from  the  water,"  according  to  Mr. 
C's  own  authority,  so,  "ek  t-ou  hudafo^i,^''  in  Acts  8:  39, 
should  have  been  translated  "from  the  water"  also,  be- 


99 

eause  both  passages  have  reference  to  tlie  situation  of  tiie 
persons  baptized.  And  it  now  rests  upon  Mr.  C.  to  prove, 
if  he  can,  tliat  en^  and  eis,  and  apo,  and  eh,  when  relating 
to  ike.  same  thing  in  tiiose  passages,  must  necessarily  have 
a  difterenf.  jneaning.  This  would  be  far  more  satisfactory 
to  tlie  public,  and  lionourable  to  himself,  than  such  tre- 
mendous apostrophising.  Such  things  in  the  present  day 
will  not  be  accepted  in  the  place  of  argument,  much  less 
for  "a  positive  precept  'or  precedent"  for  immersion,  in 
administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

And  novv^  v/hat  is  tlie  result  of  this  part  of  the  review.^ 
This- — that  nothing  perfectly  decisive  respecting  the  mode 
ef  admiiiisteriiig  baptism,  can  be  legitimately  inferred  from 
tliie  vfGY'lbapHzo^nov  from  the  prepositions  connected  v*'ith 
it.  Tliat  although  tliat  Vv'ord  is  used  by  Greek  writers  to 
signify  "to  wash  by  immersion,"  yet  they  use  it  also  to 
signify  to  wash  byotlier  means:— that  although  there  have 
been,  and  are  men  distinguished  for  literature,  who  un- 
derstand it  in  its  primary  meaning  when  used  to  denote 
the  mode  of  initiation  into  the  church;  yet,  there  have 
been,  and  are,  men  of  as  great  critical  acumen,  and  at- 
tainments, who  contend  that  it  is  not  then  Uied  itiits  pri- 
mary but  secondary  sense,  or  to  wash  by  pouring  water 
on  the  person  thus  initiated,  in  allusion  to  the  manner  of 
the  spirit's  operations  on  the  human  heart;  and  every  mail 
of  reading  knows,  that  the  number  of  the  latter,  far  exceeds 
that  of  the  former.  And  certainly,  if  a  doctrine  is  to  be 
established  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  that  conveys  it,  it 
must  be  by  the  meaning;  which  the  inspired  penmen  attach 
to  it,  and  not  that  of  heathen  writers.  So  far  then,  as  we 
have  conducted  our  review,  there  has  nothing  appeared  to 
autiiorize  Mr.  C.  to  assert  so  roundly  as  he  has  done,  that 
baptism  is  to  be  administered  by  immersion,  and  by  im- 
mersion only. 

But  v/e  are  told  in  the  New  Testam^ent  of  different  per- 
sons being  baptized  at  different  times,  by  different  bapti- 
7.ers;  perhaps  an  examination  of  those  passages  may  shed 
further  light  on  the  subject.  To  this  I  have  no  objection, 
if  you  are  willing  to  attend  me. 

The  first  upon  record  is  the  baptism  of  John,  mentioned 
by  all  the  evangelists.  Matthew  informs  us,  that  in  those 
days  (the  reign  of  Tiberius,  emperor  of  Rome)  ''came  John 
the  Baptist,  preaching  in  the  widerness  of  Judea" — "and 


loo 

ihere  went  out  to  him,  Jerusalem,  and  all  Juciea,  and  tile 
region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  or 
ett  Jordan,  confessing  their  sin!-."  The  question  now  is; 
why  did  John  choose  the  banks  of  tiie  Jordan  for  preaching; 
and  baptizing?  The  Baptist  answer,  or  rather  hypothesis  is, 
t'lat  he  might  have  a  sufficient  depth  of  water  for  immersing. 
-But  another  may  be  assigned.  It  was  foretold  of  John  that 
he  should  confine  his  ministry  to  the  wilderness 5  ^'I  am, 
says  he,  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  'the  w' ilderness."  What 
now  distinguishes  a  v/ilderness  from  other  places?  This — • 
that  the  soil  is  sterile,  and  destitute  of  springs  of  water. 
Jordan  ran  through  this  wilderness,  and  the  hypothesis  that 
John  chose  the  banks  of  Jordan  for  Xhe  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing a  sufficient  supply  of  Vi'ater  for  the  vast  multitudes  that 
resorted  to  his  ministry,  is,  for  any  thing  that  hath  yet  ap- 
pieared,  just  as  good,  and  as  probable  as  that  of  the  Bap- 
tists. This  hypothesis  is  considerably  strengthened  by 
what  is  said  of  him,  John  3:  23,  ''that  he  was  baptizing  at 
iEnon,  near  Salim, because  there  was  r/ucch  ivater  there,^'* 
This  translation  does  not  exactly  express  the  meaning  of 
the  original.  The  Greek  words  are,  -''poUa  Itudala^^^ 
V'bich,  Although  sometimes  used  to  denote  rivers,  as  rivers 
are  a  collection  of  springs,  yet  every  linguist  knows,  that 
many  springs  of  water,  are  their  literal  and  primary  mean- 
ing. It  is  not  pretended  that  there  was,  or  is  any  river  at 
iEnon;  and  Robinson,  the  Baptist  historian^  dextrous  as 
lie  is  at  evading  every  argumicnt  that  favours  baptism  by 
affusion,  cannot  tell,  after  all  iiis  research,  whether  ^non 
w-as  a  natural  spring,  an  artificial  reservoir,  or  a  cavernous 
temple  cf  the  sun. — Schleusner,  however,  tells  us  that  the 
word  signifies  a  fountain,  and  that  it  v/as  not  far  from  Jor- 
dan; and  this  circumstance  added  to  the  description  "/30/fV 
hiidoia^'^  or  many  springs  of  water,  is  a  jiroof  tliat  John 
chose  it  for  the  purpose  I  have  mentionecl;  tor  on  the  Bap- 
tist h\T3othesis,  that  John  chose  the  places  for  baptizing, 
where  there  was  a  sufficient  depth  of  walci  for  im.mersion, 
he  would  have  remained  by  the  river  Jordan. 

Eut  there  is  another  circumstance  that  militates  strongly 
against  the  Baptist  hypothesis.  It  is  this.  Both  Matthew 
and  Mark  tell  us,  ''that  Jerusalem,  and  aUJudea,  and  the 
region  round  about  J  or  da.n  went  out  to  John's  baptism,  and 
Avere  baptized  of  lilm."  What  the  exact  population  of 
Judea  was  at  that  time,  I  will  nijt  precisely  say.     But  Jo- 


101 

^ephus,  their  own  historian,  tells  us,  that  seventy  years  af- 
terwards, 1,350,000  of  thciii  v\'ere  cut  off  in  their  wars 
Avith  tlie  Romans,  as  many  more  led  captive,  besides  those 
that  escaped,  which  probably  amounted  to  more  than  one 
third  of  the  whole  popiilalior.  We  may  theref^jre  say, 
that  there  were  four  or  five  millions  of  inhabitants  in  Judea, 
in  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist.  We  ^v'ill  also  suppose 
that  only  one  million  of  them  were  baptized  by  him, 
althougli  tlie  words  of  tiie  evangelists  intimate  that  the 
greatest  number  were.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  best  chro- 
nologists,  that  John  did  not  exercise  his  ministry  longer 
than  eighteen  months,  and  at  farthest  not  longer  than  tv/o 
years,  I  v/ould  nov/  ask  any  thinking  person  if  it  w&s 
possible  for  him  to  baptize  one  million,  or  near  one  million 
of  persons,  in  that  space  of  time,  by  immersion.  But  it 
v\^as  practicable  by  att'iision,  and  upon  the  supposition  that 
a  number  of  them  stood  before  him  in  ranks,  and  that  he 
poured  the  v/ater  upon  them  fi'oni  his  hand,  or  from  some 
suitable  vessel, '■• 

But  this  is  not  all.  John  tells  us  that  his  baptism  was 
figurative  of  the  baptism  '^'with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
iirei''  and  which  the  apostles  experienced  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost^  when  "there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues^ 
like  as  of  nre,  and  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they  were 
all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with 
other  tongues  as  the  spirit  gave  them  utterance:"  Acts  2: 
3,  4.  Bat  this  as  foretold  by  the  prophet  Joel,  is  styled 
'•a  pouring  out  the  Spirit,"  and  had  John's  baptism  been 
administered  by  immersion,  it  could  not  have  been  a  proper 
ligure  of  this  extraordinary  ' 'baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  fire."  And  to  this  I  would  just  add,  that  admit- 
ting  it  could  be  incontrovertibly  proved,  that  John's  bap- 
tism was  administered  by  immersion,  yet  it  would  not 
thence  follow  that  Christian  baptism  was  to  be  adminis- 
tered in  the  same  manner.  John's  baptism  belonged  not 
to  the  Christian,  but  to  the  Jevrish  dispensation  of  grace; 
but  the  certain  mode  of  administering  Christian  baptism 

*Robmson,  the  Baptist  historian,  p.  32,  Bendt.  ed.  tells  us  that 
John  baptized  but  very  few  persons.  What  reason  does  he  assign 
for  this  assertion  in  opposition  to  the  express  declaration  of  the 
evangelists  to  the  contrary''  His  OAvn  ipse  dixit.  What  could  in- 
duce him  to  such  a  bold  measuije?  He  saw  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment I  have  mentioned  above,  and  had  no  otliex  v.ay  of  evading  it. 
*}0 


10:a 

Is  to  be  sought  for  from  an  examination  of  the  baptism?* 
recorded  under  that  dispensation.  This  I  shaU  also  now 
attempt. 

The  first  of  these  that  occurs,  is  the  baptism  of  the  three 
thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  recorded  in  the  second 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  scene  is  laid  in 
Jerusalem.  The  followers  of  Christ,  amounting  to  120 
men  and  women,  vi  ere  assembled  in  one  place  aoreeably' 
to  his  orders.  According  to  his  promise,  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  the  form  of  cloven  tongues,  as  of  tire,  fell,  or  was  poured 
out  upon  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues  as  the  Spirit 
gare  ihem  utterance.  \\  hen  this  was  noised  abroad,  the 
multitude  came  together.  Peter  preached  to  them 7  They 
were  deeply  convinced  of  their  guilt  in  crucifying  tlue  Son 
of  God  as  an  impostor;  ''and  said  to  Peter,  and  to  the  rest 
of  the  apostles,  men  and  brethren,  v.hat  shall  we  dor"  Pe- 
ter exhorted  them,  ''to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins."  They 'cbniplied;  and 
as  many  as  received  the  word  gladly  were  baptized;  "and 
the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  tliem  about  thrco 
thousand  souls.*' 

I  have  said  in  my  third  letter,  that  none  but  the  twelve 
apostles  had  authority  at  that  time  to  administer  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism;  and  as  all  this  happened  in  the  apace  of 
seven  or  eight  hours,  that  there  was  not  time  for  the  twelve 
apostles  to  baptize  three  thousand  persons^ by  immersion, 
though  practicable  by  aftiision.  To  this  it  may  be  object- 
ed, that  the  seventy  disciples  of  whom  we  read  in  the  gos- 
pel by  John,  were  no  doubt  present,  and  had  a  right  to 
baptize  as  well  as  the  twelve  apostles.  Be  it  so — ^but 
where  was  the  water  for  the  immersion  of  three  thousand 
persons,  n^.any  of  whom  nmst,  even  according  to  this  hy- 
pothesis, be  immersed  at  the  same  point  of  tune.  Some 
tell  us  in  the  brook  Kidron;  but  this  brook  was  very  small, 
and  dry  a  considerable  part  of  the  year.  Others  tell  us, 
that  they  could  have  been  baptized  in  the  Aioiten  sea  of 
the  teniple.  But  is  it  at  ail  probable  that  the  chief  priests, 
who  had  the  oversight  and  command  of  the  temple,  ^\  ould 
suffer  them  to  pollute  it,  by  administering  an  ordinance  of 
the  abhorred  Kazarine?  Besides;  there  is  not  the  least  in- 
timation in  the  sacred  history,  that  they  removed  from  the 
place  where  they  had  at  first  assembled;  and  all  could  be 
done  where  they  were,  and  without  confusion,  and  with  a 


lOS 

few  quarts  of  v/ ater,  if  dene  by  aiiasion.  From  iliese  few 
suggeatioas,  and  other  circumstances  that  will  naturally 
occur  to  the  reader,  he  will  draw  his  own  inference, 
whether  these  three  thousaad  were  baptized  by  immersion, 
or  by  affusion,  or  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  subject. 
The  baptism  of  the  Samaritans  and  of  the  Eunuch  of  the 
queen  of  Ethiopia,  present  themselves  next  for  examina- 
tion. There  is  nothing  said  of  the  mannei'  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Samaii  ans5  but  cf  the  Eunuch  it  is  said,  ''they 
went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out 
of  tii«^va,ter,  the  Spirit  of  ihe  Lord  caught  Philip  away 
that  he  saw  him  no  more. '' 

Mr.  C.  tells  us,  p.  131,  as  a  proof  I  suppose  of  baptisifi 
by  immersion,  that  king  James  1.  of  England,  '*by  whose 
authority  die  present  version  of  the  scriptures  was  made, 
prohibited  the  translators  from  translating  into  English 
^hcqTiUTtia  and  hapiizo^^  where  these  v*ords  respected  the 
rite;  but  ordered  them  to  adopt  those  woids  as  they  had 
been  adopted  by\he  Vulgate."  ''And  that  had  the  trans- 
lators been  'dtfib€rty,  instead  of  the  command  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,' "6e  iaptized  every  one  of  you,"  it  would 
have  read  be  dipped  every  one  of  yoti- — and  in  regard  to 
the  Eunuch,  instead  of  the  woixls  "he  baptized  him.,  it 
w  ould  have  read,  he  immersed  him. " 

"^^  hat  Mr.  .C.  says  is  true  history.  The  depraved  hean 
of  man  is  strongly  opposed  to  the  simplicity  cf  the  gospel, 
and  the  sinrplicity  of  its  ordinances.  Hence  then,  not 
only  nev/  rices  have  been  added  to  those  instituted  by 
Christ,  but  additions  made  to  those  he  has  appointed. 
1  his  was  the  case  with  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  ^  In  tha 
days  of  Tertuliian,  if  not  before,  an  idea  began  to  prevail 
from  some  unguarded,  and  perhaps  hyperbolical  expres- 
sions of  that  father,  or  from  his  mistaking  the  sign  for  the 
thing  signified,  and  the  means  for  the  thing  to  be  obtained, 
and  which  depends  entirely  on  sovereign  grace,  that  there 
was  a  regenerating  mliuence  in  baptismal  water.*  Hence 
tlien  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  pouring  a  small  quanrity  cf  wa- 
ter on  the  head  of  the  person  to  be  ba-otizcd  v/culd  not  be 


*  O  felix  sacraments m  aqtis  nostrae,  quia  ablutis  delictis  pristi*- 
nje  ccccitatis  ill  vitam  Kteniain  liberamur — sed  nos  pisciculi  secun- 
dum ichthun  nostruti  Jesum  Chjistum  in  aqua  nascimur. 


104        • 

eonsidered  as  eiiicacioiis  as  hnnisrsmg  the  whole  body  iu 
th9  supposed  purifying. element;  nor  are  evidences  want- 
ing in  tlte  present  day  of  the  deleterious  eiiect  of  that  opi- 
nion. In  the  dark  ages  of  Poper;,'  this  opinion  "grew 
vvith  its  growth,  and  strenf^theiied  with  its  strength,"  and 
infected  almost  all  the  churches  of  Clu-istendoui,  and  the 
Aiiglican  church  with  the  rest;  nor  did  it  lose  ground  until 
the  revival  of  learning  at  tlie  era  of  the  reformation.  ICing. 
James,  though  somewhat  pedantic,  was  yet  a  learned  man, 
being  educated  by  the  celebrated  Gkoiige  Buchannan. 
He  knew  t!ie  imposing  idea  of  immersion  in  baptism  was 
tlie  prevailing  idea  in  England |  and  therefore  gave  the  or- 
def-s  mentioned  by  Mr.  C.  rightly  judging,  that  the  light 
of  increasing  literature,  and  the  cultivation  of  biblical  cri- 
ticism would,  in  due  time,  settle  the  meaning  of  the  words 
bapfisma  and  baptizo,  in  the  New  Testament.  Nor  was 
he  mistaken.  The  vote  given  not  forty  years  after\vards 
in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  alluded  to  by  Mr.  C.  in  the 
following  page,  is  a  proof  how  muc'h  ground  the  doctrine 
of  immersion  ha'd  lost  in  tliat  space  of  time,  by  the  increase 
of  sound  literature.  The  translators  obeyed  the  king;  but 
who  is  there  acquainted  with  the  Greek  langu;ige,  and 
who  has  read  the  New  Testament  in  that  language,  bu', 
must  have  seen  that  not  an  opportunity  oiiered  itself  of 
translating  in  favour  of  immersion  that  they  did  not  em- 
brace. Although  they  translate  "Cii''  to,  and  '*(>/r'  from, 
in  different  places,  yet  whenever  they  met  v»^ith  them  in 
connexion  wi'h  baptism,  thry  invariably  render  the  one 
into,  and  the  other  out  of.  U-it  strong  as  their  prejudices 
and  prepossessions  were,  it  is  astonishing  that  the  circum- 
stances of  the  baptism  now  under  consideration,  and  the 
language  of  the  inspired  historian,  did  not  induce  them 
to  translate  "£'/s*'  /o,  and  '^e/c"  from.  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  were  together  in  the  ch?riot,  and  according  to  Je- 
rome, Sandys,  and  other  travellers,  who  have  visited  the 
place,  a  sinall  stream  of  water  (!i  hudoor)  ran  beneath 
them.  And  instead  of  translathig  the  passage  they  went 
down  to  the  w'ater,  and  came  v,\ffrom  the  water;  they  have 
rendered  it,  'Hhey  went  down  into  the  v/ater,  ana  came 
up  out  of  the  water. "  They  evidently  designed  to  convey 
the  idea,  and  make  the  impression,  that  there  was  immer- 
sion  in  the  case;  and  I  have  frequently  heard  these  words 
'juoted  as  a  proof  of  it^  and  Mr.  C.  seems,  in  page  154s  to 


105 

understand  the  words  as  conveying  this  idea.  But  siiclir 
do  not  reflect,  that  the  words  thus  understood,  imply  that 
Philip  was  immersed  as  well  as  the  Eunuch:  for  it  is  said 
that  ''tliey  Vv'ent  down  into  the  v.-ater,  both  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch;  and  they  came  up  out  of  the  water."  But  read 
the  passage  as  it  ought  to  have  been  translated;  "they  went 
down  to  the  v.  atfer^  and  the^y  came  up  from  the  water;" 
and  all  the  absurdity  of  the  baptizer  being  immersed  as 
v/ell  as  the  person  baptized,  disappears;  and  the  passage 
is  rational,  solemn,  and  instructive.  I  deem  it  unneces- 
sary to  say  a  vv'ord  more  respecting  tliis  interesting  baptism, 
as  I  am  persuaded  that  there  is  not  a  person  whose  mind 
is  not  prepossessed  by  a  system,  and  who  will  weigh  the 
circumstances  attending  it,  but  will  be  constrained  to  say 
tliat  the  Eunuch  v/as  baptized  by  affusion,  and  not  by  im- 
mersion. 

The  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  recorded  in  tlie  9th,  and 
of  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  mentioned  in  the  following 
chapter  of  the  Acts,  were  administered,  the  one  in  the 
city  of  Damascus,  and  the  other  in  Cornelius'  own  house. 
It  is  merely  said  of  Saul,  that  when  Ananias  laid  his  hands 
upon  him,  "there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales, 
and  he  received  his  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was 
baptized."  It  is  also  said  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends, 
that  when  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  miraculous  gift  of  tongues 
fell  upon  them,  Peter  said,  "Can  any  man  forbid  water, 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized  who  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we.^  and  he  commanded  them  to  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  I  would  only  here 
remark,  that  what  is  said  of  these  baptisms,  conveys  tlie 
idea  that  they  were  baptized  in  the  places  where  they  were 
— Said  in  the  house  of  Judas,  and  Cornelius  and  his  friends 
in  Cornelius'  house;  and  that  immediately  too,  on  Saul's 
receiving  his  siglit,  and  after  i\i^,  Holy  Ghost  had  been 
poured  out  on  Corneitus  and  his  friends.  Every  circum- 
stance conveys  the  impression  that  they  VN^ere  baptized  by 
affusion;  nor  is  there  a  single  circumstance  that  fiivour* 
immersion. 

As  for  the  baptism  of  Lydia,  and  of  her  hGuse,  recorded 
in  the  16th  cliapter,  it  is  not  said  Vvliere  it  was  administer- 
ed. There  is,  indeed,  mention  made  of  her  resorting  to 
one  of  the  iews  prose?!che,  or  places  of  prayer,  by  a  river 
.jside;  but  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  that  she  and  h^v 


106 

fwuse  were  baptized  at  or  in  that  river.  But  I  think  it  i^i 
certain  that  the  jailer  and  Ills  housCy  mentioned  in  the  same 
chapter,  were  baptized  in  the  prison,  and  the  strong  pre- 
sumption is,  bj  affusion  and  not  bj  immersion.  For  al- 
though it  appears  that  there  was"  a  river  near  the  city  ot" 
Philippi,  it  is  not  to  be  siq^posed  that  he  would  leave  his 
charge,  and  at  midnight  go  Vv'ith  his  koiise^  and  Paul  and 
Silas,  to  that  river,  for  the  purpose  of  being  baptized.  •  Be- 
sides, it  is  said,  that  after  tlie  alarm  by  the  earthquake^  and 
after  they  had  spoken  the  word  of  tlie  Lard  to  him,  and  to  all 
that  were  in  his  house,  and  after  he  had  washed  their 
stripes,  "he  was  baptized,  and  all  his  straightway,"  or  im- 
mediately. The  refusal  of  Paul  and  Silas  on  the  next 
day  to  leave  the  prison,  until  i\\Q  magistrates  themselves 
*'vv'Ould  come  and  fetch  them  out,"  is  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  they  would  nor,  and  did  not,  leave  it  in  the  nig;ht. 
Here  again  every  circumstance  attending  this  extraordi- 
nary baptism,  affords  the  strongest  presumption  that  it 
v.'as  administered  by  aifiision;  nor  is  there  a  single  cir- 
cumstance in  favour  of  its  being  administered  by  immer- 
sion, p 

Having  thus  examined  all  the  instances  of  Chrisfiau 
baptism  that  are  mentioned  with  any  degree  of  detail  in 
the  New  Testament,  you  will  have  perceived  that  there  is 
not  a  circumstance  attending  any  one  of  them  that  fa- 
vours immersion;  and  you  will  also  have  perceived  with 
what  caution  Mr.  C's  assertions  and  conclusions  on  this 
point  are  to  be  received.  In  p.  141,  when  su  niilug  up 
his  arguments  in  favour  of  immersion,  he  mentioas  this 
cne:  '^the  places  where  this  rite  v/as  a^Uninl-stered — in 
rivers^  and  wivere  there  was  'nuch  v/ater."  There  1^3  no 
river,  nor  even  much  water  men+ioiiefl  in  any  of  tiiem,  the 
baptism  by  John  excepted.  The  three  thousand  on  ih^ 
flay  of  Pentecost  were  b.iptized  in  \\\ii  city  of  Jeru'salem, 
v/here  there  was  no  river,  nor  even  much  v/ater;  Saul  iii 
the  city  of  Damascus,  and  in  the  house  of  Judas;  Corneli- 
us and  his  friends  in  Cornelius'  house:  and  you  and  the 
reader  will  draw  the  conclusion  whether  thejaiU^r  and  hi* 
kouse  were  baptized  in  the  prison,  or  elsewhere. 

I  have  designedly  postponed  a  considera.tion  of  the  Bap- 
tism of  Christ  himieif,  to  diis  place;  because  it  had  not  tlie 
ifiost  distant  relation,  nor  resemblance  to  John's  baptism. 
as  admim:jtered  to  the  Jevvs;  nor  yet  to  tlie  baptism  aftet^ 


\vaids  appointed  by  himself:  and  to  rea&ou  from  it,  M'itli 
respect  to  either  the  uature,  or  mode  of  Ch^l!^tian  baptism, 
is  something  worse  than  preposterous.  John's  baptism  was 
a  baptism  ''unto  repentance/'  or  a  mean  designed  for  pro- 
ducing repentance:  and  Christian  baptism  was  appointed 
as  a  mean  for  obtaining  ''the  remission  of  sins,  and  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost;''  and  I  need  not  tell  you,  that  to 
say,  that  Christ  was  baptized  that  he  might  obtam  repen- 
tance and  the  remission  of  sins,  would  be  blasphemy  of  a 
very  atrocious  character.  What  was  it  then? — It  was  the 
appointed  mean  whereby  he  was  publickly  consecrated  to 
Jns  priestly  office.  The  Jewish  High  Priest  was  a  distin- 
guished type  of  him  in  that  respect:  and  whoever  vvill  com- 
pare the  bajitism  of  Christ,  with  the  directions  given  by 
Jehovah  to  Moses  in  the  4Cth  chapter  of  Exodus,  fur  the 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  that  office,  will  see, 
that  the  type  was  exactly  fulfilled  when  Jesus  was  bapti- 
zed, or  washed  vrith  water  by  John. — -'Thou  shait  bring 
Aaron  and  liis  sons  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation^  and  v»ash  them  with  water;  and  thou  shalt 
put  upon  Aaron  the  holy  garments,  and  anoint  and  sanc- 
tify him,  that  lie  may  minister  unto  me  in  the  Priest's  of- 
fice." Now,  v,e  are  told  that  when  Jesus  was  baptized, 
"Jerusalem,  Judea,  and  the  region  round  about  Jordan" 
had  resorted  to  Jo'in's  baptism — Hare  then,  was  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel.  In  the  45th  Psalm,  and  61st  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  the  influences  of  the  spirit  which  were  given 
Avithout  measure  to  Christ,  are  compared  ~to  »'Oil;"  and 
we  are  farther  told  that  when  Christ  A^as  baptized,  the 
Spirit  of  God,  prefigured  by  tise  holy  anointing  oil  \i\  the 
consecration  of  Aaron,  descended  like  a  dove,  and  lighted 
upon  him.  Then,  and  not  ill  then,  did  he  enter  upon  his 
mediatorial  work,  which  is  an  additional  proof  of  the  pro- 
priety of  the  explication  I  have  given  to  that  memorable 
transaction.  And  h^re  I  cannot  but  observe,  that  those 
ministers  who  call  upon  their  hearers  to  go  down  into  the 
water  in  imitation  of  Christ;  and  d.ose  per^jons  %\ho  say 
they  have  followed  their  Lord  aiid  master  m  his  baptisin, 
know  not  what  they  are  say. ng,  I  would  only  farther  re- 
mark on  this  point,  that  as  .he  Jewish  higli  priests  were 
washed  witli  v/ater  before  the  door  ia  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  we  n;a"  safely  infer,  that  it  was  not  by  im- 
mersion, as  we  do  not  read^  of  any  suitiiDle  bath  provided 


for  the  purpose;  and  that  the  type  might  be  fuliilled  in  all 
its  parts,  another  fair  inference  follows,  that  Jesus  was  not 
baptized  bjimmersion^  and  to  this  I  would  add,  that  here 
is  another  instance  of  the  verb  baptizo  being  used  in  an- 
other sense  than  "to  immerse." 

1  shall  only  notice  another  argument  of  Mr.  Ws  on  this 
point,  with  Mr.  C's  reply.  As  a  proof  that  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  are  scriptural  modes  of  applying  water  in  bap- 
tism, Mr.  W.  says  Mr.  C.  p.  124,  argued,  that  baptism  had 
not  only  a  reference  to  the  Spirit's  influences;  which  are 
frequently  said  to  be  ''poured  out;"  but  to  the  blood  of 
€hiist,  which  is  called  'Hhe  blood  of  sprinkling."  Mr. 
C.  admits  that  water  in  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  the  Spi- 
rit's influences;  but  denies  that  it  is  an  emblem  of  the 
blood  of  Christ.  I  admit  that  it  is  not  so,  directly,  but 
indirectly,  it  is;  as  it  was  in  consequence  of  Christ's  obe- 
dience unto  death,  that  the  Spirit's  influences  are  given 
for  the  purposes  of  regeneration  and  future  holiness.  And 
that  it  is  so,  is  evident  from  the  words  of  Peter  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost — "Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  re- 
ceive the  ^ift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here,  the  obtaining 
the  remission  of  sins,  the  consequence  of  receiving  the 
blood  of  Christ  by  faith,  and  tlie  renewing  influences  of 
the  Spirit  are  conjoined  by  the  apostle,  and  urged  as  an 
argument  to  induce  the  Jews  to  submit  to  the  ordinan-ce  of 
baptism.  But  aitliough  Mr.  C.  admits  that  water  in  bap- 
tism is  an  emblem  of  the  Spirit's  influences;  yet  he  tells 
us,  that  "when  baptism  is  spoken  of  in  relation  to  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  denotes  the  overwhelming  m- 
fluences  of  that  Almighty  agent,  in  consequence  of  which 
all  the  facuides  of  the  mind  are  imoued  by  it."  Tne 
''"overwhe/niing^^  influences  of  the  Spirit,  is  not  a  scrip- 
ture expression,  and  you  may  be  ready  to  ask  what  he 
means  by  it  I  will  not  posiriveiy  say  that  he  means  the 
same  thing  as  immersing;  but  as  he  pleads  for  baptism  by 
immersion,  and  as  immersion  is  a  being  literally  over- 
whelmed in  water,  and  is  so  termed  by  Baptist  writers; 
then,  I  may  suppose  that  he  means  the  same  thing  as 
being  'Hminersed''^  in  the  Spirit's  influences.  But  why  not 
use  the  word  "ij.imersed."  That  would  have  startled, 
and  had  an  unfavorable  effect  on  the  reader  of  the  Bible, 
who  has  met  with  the  words,  "the  blood  of  sprinkling"— 


109 

*'the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  ,of  Jesus  Cluisf' — 'Ht«; 
sprinkling  of  clean  water  upon  the  church  that  she  might 
be  clean" — "the  pouring  out  a  Spirit  of  grace  and  suppli- 
cation"— "the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  on  all  flesh" — ^**the 
pouring  out  the  Spirit  on  the  seed  and  offspring  of  the 
people  of  God"— -and  "the  pouring  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ohostj"  but  never  once  of  any  being  immersed  in  the'bloQd 
of  Christ,  or  being  immersed  in  the  Spirit's  influences. 

You  will  now  jud^e,  to  wliich  of  the  two  systems,  the 
argument  of  baptismal  water  being  an  emblem  of  the  Spir- 
it's renovating  influences,  belongs.  You  will  also  judge 
whether  Mr.  C.  has  produced  such  "positive  precept,  or 
precedent,"  as  authorized  him  to  say,  'Hhat  all  who  have 
not  been  immersed  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  after  professing  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  have 
never  been  baptized,  and  are  yet  in  an  unbaptized  state;" 
thereby,  unchurching  all  the  churches  in  the  world,  the 
Baptist  church  excepted;  and  the  Baptist  church  too,  un- 
less he  can  prove  unequivocally,  that  the  apostles  baptized 
by  immersion,  an<l  by  immersion  only;  and  also  trace  a 
succession  of  Baptist  churches  from  their  time  to  the  pres- 
ent day.  "•Hk  labor,  hoc  opus  esj;"  Mr.  C.  is  in  honour 
bound  to  do  so  in  defence  of  his  new  catechism;  and  tlie 
public  expectation  will  be,  that  if  this  is  ever  done,  it  will 
be  by  the  theological  hero  who,  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
has  "defied  all  Christendom."  But  ere  he  attempts 
this,  let  me  beg  leave  to  observe  to  him,  that  the  proof  of 
the  apostles  baptizing  by  immersion  only,  must  be  (accor- 
ding to  his  own  rule,)  "by  positive  preceptor  precedent:" 
and  with  respect  to  the  Utter,  there  must  not  be  a  broken 
liak^n  the  chain.  For  as  not  only  infant  baptism,  but  the 
baptismof  adults,' if  not  by  immersion,  is  according  to  his 
catechism  a  nullity;  then,  as  persons  baptized  in  either  of 
these  ways,  "are  still  in  an  unbaptized  sta.te,"  they  have 
no  right  to  preach  the  gospel,  much  less  to  administer  the 
ordinances  of  the  Christian  dispensation  to  others.  I  am 
persuaded  that  there  is  not  a  moderate  and  intelligent 
Baptist,  who  will  say  with  him,  that  a  mistake  in  tlie  mode 
of  administering  baptism,  infers  this  sweeping  and  iuadmis- 
sibie  consequen CO.  As  well  might  it  be  said ,  that  th e  deatfi 
of  Christ  is  not  commemorated  by  the  humble  communi- 
cant in  the  ordinance  of  the  Sapper,  because,  instead  of  a 
full  meal  or  supper,  he  eats  only  a  small  piec8,.of  bi-ea^j 
.11 


110 

and  drinks  but  a  spoonful  of  wine;  as  that  baptism  is  null 
and  void,  because  water  is  applied  to  only  a  part,  and  not 
to  the  whole  of  the  body.  Nor  can  the  above  consequence 
be  inferred  from  a  mistake  respecting  some  of  the  subjects. 
For,  admitting  that  Pedobaptists  are  mistaken  wdth  respect 
iodhe  right  of  the  infant  children  of  church  members  to 
baptism,  the  utmost  that  could  be  lawfully  inferred  is,  that 
in  those  cases  they  misapply  the  ordinance.  I  repeat  my 
persuasion,  that  there  is  not  a  modej-ate  and  intelligent 
Eaptist  w^ho  will  admit  of  the  foregoing  consequences,  and 
who  will  not  consider  their  cause  weakened  and  not 
strengtliened  by  those  novel  and  crude  doctrines,  whence 
he  has  attempted  to  draw  these  illegitimate  conclusions. 
I  sliall  close  tliis  review,  witli  briefly  noticing  a  number 
of  heavy  charges,  v.hich  Mr.  C.  brings  against  the  Pedo- 
baptist  system,  as  a  system,  in  the  Sd  No.  of  the  Appen- 
dix to  his  book. 

1.  "It  is  will-worship,  or  founded  on  the  will  of  man, 
and  not  on  the  will  of  God." 

2.  <'It  has  carnalized  and  secularized  the^church." 

S.  * 'It  imposes  a  religion  upon  the  subjects  of  it,  before 
ihey  are  aware  of  it." 

4.  '*Ithas  imlfo^mly  inspired  rr persecuting  spirit." 

5.  ''That  it  inspires  the  subject  as  soon  as  he  recogni- 
ses the  action,  and  understands  it  as  his  parents  explain  it, 
with  an  idea  that  he  is  better  than  a  heathen,  or  now  in  a 
stale  difiering  from  an  unbaptized person." 

The  first  ami  -fifth  of  tliese  charges  have  been  incidental- 
ly noticed,  and  I  trust  fully  obviated,  in  the  preceding  let- 
ters. The  second  can  never  liappen,  but  where  the  church 
and  state  are  amalgamated:  and  we  are  not  to  argue  against 
a  thing,  from  the  abuse  of  it.  The  tliird  is  silly,  as  it  is 
weli  known,  that  the  prejudice  of  education  is  as  strong  in 
ihc)  children  of  EaptistSj  as  of  Pedobaptists.^  The  fourth, 
♦•that  it"has  zmi/brm/?/ inspired  a  persecuting  spirit,"  is 
indeed  a  serious  charge,  and  if  well  founded,  would  be  a 
strong  argument  that  it  is  ''founded  on  the  willof  man,  and 
not  on  the  will  of  God. "  But  what  is  the  proof  which  Mr. 
C.  adduces  in  s:upport  of  this  heavy  charge?  A  detailed 
account  from  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptifiis,  of  seven 
]  crsons  being  ill-treated  in  Virginia,  and  tl)ree  or  four  in 
Sir.i^sachusetts,  on  account  of  their  opposing  and  probably 
-infVnr^  ij-Hint  baptism.     I  thii)k  I  am  as  much  oppo-ed 


Ill 


as  Mr.  C.  can  possibly  be,  to  perseculioii  of  any  kind,  ana 
to  any  degree,  on  account  of  religious  tenets;  but  who  can 
refrain  from  smiling  v/hen  he  reads  this  mighty  proof  of 
Mr.  C's  unqualified  assertion,  '-that  infant  sprinkling, (as 
he  is  pleased  to  term  it)  has  uniformly  in.vpired  a  persecu  ■ 


ag"  suirit?" 


\s  principles,  however  acquired,  are  tlie  sources  of  ac 
tion,  it  may  be  v/orth  while  to  inquire  if  there  is  any  thing 
in  the  Pedobaptist  system,  that  has  a  tendency  to  beget  and 
cherish  the  hateful  spirit  of  persecution.— According  to  tlic 
Pedobaptist  system  the  minor  children  of  church  members 
are  planted  by  baptism  in  the  vineyard  or  visible  church  of 
God;  and  their  parents  are  thereby  brought  under  obliga- 
tions^ and  voluntarily  promise  in  the  more  immediate  pres- 
ence of  God,  and  oflhe  assembled  church,  ^ Ho  bring  them 
up  in  the  nurture  and  adm-onition  of  the  Lord."  No\\ 
'  ue  would  think  that  cliiidren  thus  educated,  bid  as  fair  to 
;i)ibibe  the  mild  and  benevolent  principles  of  tlie  gospel. 
a.  3  the  children  of  Baptists  whose  parents  are  not  under  the 
iniiuence'of  tlie  foregoing  obligations.  Again:  according 
to  the  Pedobaptist  system,  baptized  minors  are -taught,  or 
ought  to  be  taught,  that  in  consequence  of  their  being^  plan- 
ted in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord5t'iiey  are  under  special  ob- 
ligations "to  avoid  the  pollutions  of  tlie  world,"  and  t(» 
seek  by  prayer,  and  a  diligent  attendance  on  the  means  of 
grace  the  thing  signiQed  by  bairtlsm,  the  washing  of  re- 
generation, "by  the  Holy"  Spirit. "  Now  I  should  also 
think,  that  children  thus  instructed,  and,v*'hdse  ininds  are 
imbued  vvith  this  principle,  bid  as  fair,  if  not  fairer,  to  be 
respecters  of  things  divine,  and  to  be  as  humane,  benevo- 
lent, and  orderly  members  of  society,  as  the  children  of 
those  who  are  taugh.t,  that  th.ey  are  under  no  such  obliga- 
tions from  the  aforesaid  privileges 5  but  taught,  that  tliey 
are  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  darkness,  and  if  God  converts 
them  it  is  well,  if  not,  they  are  not  blamable:  for  Mr.  C. 
tells  them  in  p.  29r,  that  "for  his  own  part,  he  conceives 
it  to  be  as  reasonable  to  blame  a  man  for  being  black,  or  for 
not  being  seven  io-iii  high,  as  to  blame  him  for  not  being  a 
Christian."  And  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  children 
ihus  educated,  and  thus  early  impressed,  vdll  bear  a  com- 
-jnaison  in  the  aggregate  with  the  children  of  Baptist  fam- 
iiies,  for  a  respect  for  things  divine,  and  for  all  those  char- 
ities tliat  are  the  supports  of  society,  and  the  sweeteners 


of  social  life.  I  will  venture-to  affirm  more,  that  three- 
fourths,  if  not  nine -tenths  of  those  who  are  at  present  en- 
gaged in  suppressing  the  current  of  abounding  immoraiitjy 
und  in  spreading  the  benig-n  principles-  of  the  gospel  of 
peace,  afid  of  love,  are  those  who  have  been  baptized  in 
i-ifancy.  Facts  are  stubborn  arguments,  and  all  theories 
and  speculations,  however  specious,^  must  give  way  to,  and 
bow  before  them.  I  freely  admit,  that  many  baptized  in 
infancy  were  persecutors,  and  addicted  to  ail  kinds  of 
wickedness;  but  the  question  is,  was  this  ihe  consequence 
of  their  being  baptized  in  infancy,,  or  of  the  Pedobaptist 
system  as  a  sj»stem;  or  the  abuse  of  it  in  those  churche* 
that  are  unhappily  amalgamated  with  the  state;  or  in  those 
churches  that  have  departed  from  the  truth;  or  in  those 
where  the  doctrine  of  baptism  is  not  correctly  understood  B 

After  Mr.  C.  had  thus  roundly  and  unqualifiedly  asser- 
ted "that  infant  sprinkling  has  unifornilij  inspired  a  per- 
secuting spirit;''  he  also  informs  us,  *4hat  every  body 
knov/s,  that  Quakers  and  Baptists  have  never  persecuted." 
Quakers  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  present  question,  but 
it  may  be  also  v/orth  while  to  inquire  iiito  the  fact  as  it  res- 
pects Baptists;  and  also  to  examine  whether,  there  is  any 
thing  in  the  Baptist  system,  that  has  a  natural  tendency  ta 
produce  this  hateful  and  wicked  spirit. 

Baptist  historians  are  very  fond' of  telling  us,  that  th«y 
are  descended  from  the  Paktrobrussians,  and  other  an- 
cient sects,  who  are  usually  .considered  amongst  the  wit- 
nesses for  the  truth  in  the  dark  ages  of  Popery.  Be  that 
as  it  may,  it  is  unquestionably  certain  that  the  present 
Baptist  churches,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  are  sprungs 
i'rom  the  Anabaptists,  who  started  up  in  Germany  at  the 
lommencement  of  the  Reformation.  Their  peculiar  prin- 
ciples are  distinctly  recorded^  and  transmitted  to  us  by 
MosHEiM,  and  otlier  ecclesiastical  Historians,  "They 
held,"  says  Mosheim,  '^that  the  church  of  Christ  ought  to 
be  exempt  from  all  sin:  that  all  things  ought  to  be  common 
amongst  the  faithful:  that  all  usury,  tithes,  and  ^tribute, 
ought  to  be  entirely  abolished:  that  the  baptism  of  infanis 
was  an  invention  of  the  devil:  that  every  Christian  was  in- 
vested with  power  to  preach  the  gospel:  and  consequently,: 
tjiat  the  church  stood  in  no  need  of  ministers  or  pastors: 
that  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  civil  magistrates  were  useless:. 
•ind  thn.t  God  still  continued  to  reveal  his  will  to  chosen 


113 
persons  by  dreams  and  visions. "     Eccl.  Hist.  London  ed, 

Vol.  iv.    p.  440.  1      rp  f    r 

And  what  was  the  practical  operation  and  effect  ot  these 
principles,  and  especially  of  the  leading  principle  of  a  spot- 
less church,  whence  all  the  others  naturally  and  necessa- 
rily sprung?  Was  it  a  high  respect  for  things ^divme,  and 
humanity,  and  benevolence,  and  orderly  obedience  to  the 
laws.?  Norbutthe  most  unparalleled  blasphemy,  anarchy, 
and  licentiousness,  with  an  attempt  under  Munzer,  Stub- 
NER,  and  Storck,  and  other  leaders,  to  overturn  all  gov- 
ernment in  church  and  states  and  after  disturbing  the  peace 
of  Germany,  and  of  the  surrounding  countries  for  a  con- 
siderable time,  and  wounding  the  Reformation  in  its  very 
vitals,  they  v/ere  at  last  with  considerable  difficulty  dis- 
comfited, and  dispersed  by  the  German  princes. 

And  who  is  there,  who  has  carefully  read  Mr.  C's  book, 
but  must  have  noticed  the  leading  and  distinguishing  prin- 
ciples of  those  turbulent  fanatics?  They  pled  for  a  spotless 
church,  and  so  does  Mr.  C. — a  plausible  and  imposing 
idea  indeed,  but  which  I  trust  I  have  shown  is  contrary  to 
the  design  of  Jehovah  in  erecting  a  church  amongst  guilty 
men.  They  hated  and  despised  the  Pedobaptist  clergy  of 
the  day;  and  who  has  read  Mr.  C^s  Catechism*  and  other 
parts  of  his  book,  but  has  been  struck  by  the  rancour  man- 
ifested tlierein  against  the  Pedobaptist  clergy  of  the  pres- 
ent time,  a.nd  tile  attempts  he  ha.s  made  to  bring  them  into 
contempt  and  disrepute?  They  called  "infant  baptism  an 
invention  of  the  devil;"  and  although  Mr.  G.  has  not  used 
the  same  language,  yet  he  has  given  the  fullest  evidence 
that  he  hates  it  as  cordially  as  ever  the  German  Anabaptists 
did,  by  the  unceasing  ridicule  he  has  attempted  to  pour  up 
on  it  in  almost  every  page.  And  if  it  is  a  fact,  (as  I  be- 
lieve it  is,)  that  he  is'the  wTiter  of  several  essays  published 
in  i\\ii- Washington  Reporter^  with  the  si^^nature  of  Can- 
DiDus,  against  moral  societies,  and  the  laws  of  Pennsyl- 
vania against  vice  and  immorality,  who  is  there  who  has 
read  these  essays,  but  must  have  seen  th.at  he  iias  imbibed 
all  the  leading  theological,  and  political  principles  of 
Munzer,  Stubner,  and  Storck;  tind  tiiat  should  those 
principles  be  generally  imbibed;  then,  as  similar  causes 
produce  similar  efiects^'the  orderly,  liappy,  and  respectable 

''Vide  Quest.  11.  16,  18.  19.  r'B.  69, 


114 

state  of  Feiinsjlvama  would  soon  experience  all  the  cal- 
amities that  Germany  and  the  low  countries  once  experi- 
enced ii'om  the  Anabaptists  under  the  specious  pretence 
cf  erecting  a  spotless  church. 

As  these  letters  inaj  be  read  by  some  who  are  not  ac- 
quainted ^vith  Mr.  C.  or  who  know  not  his  general  moral 
character,  I  feel  it  to  be  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  him  to  say, 
that  I  do  nottliink  he  has  any  such  designs,  and  that  should 
such  an  event  take  place,  his  moral  habits  would  not  suffer 
him  to  take  any  part  in  scenes  of  anarchy,  licentiousness 
and  blood.  It  is  a  plausible  and  unscnptural  theory  that 
iias  led  him  to  speak  and  Avrite  as  he  has  done,  and  what  is 
no  uncommon  thing  with  even  good  men,  his  head  is  at  va- 
riance v»dth  his  heart.  But  although  I  believe  that  Mr.  C. 
w^ould  take  no  part  in  the  practical  operation  of  his  own 
principles,  yet  as  human  nature  is  tlie  same  in  all  ages,  and 
in  all  countries,  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  there  are  daring 
and  unprincipled  men  amongst  us,  who,  if  a  favourable 
opportunity  offered,  would  re-act  the  scenes  of  Germany 
in  the  16th  century,  under  the  plausible  pretext  of  erecting 
a  spotless  church  here  below.  I  have  not  however  any^ 
apprehension  of  present  danger  from  the  principles  incul- 
cated in  the  essays  alluded  to,  as  they  have  been  encoun- 
tered bv  a  writer  with  the  signature  of  'Timothy,  ^vhose 
strictures  have  completely  neutralized  their  deleterious 
tendency  to  all,  the  grossly  ignorant  alid  the  lawless  ex- 
cepted, the  number  of  which,  when  compared  with  the 
mass  of  our  citizens,  is,  I  trust  but  small. 

It  was  with  reluctance  that  I  have  introduced  the  Ger- 
man Anabaptists  at  all  into  this  review.  It  v,as  not  with 
die  design  of  hurting  the  feelings,  or  casting  a  reflection  qn 
tiie  present  Baptist  Church.  For  although  I  think  them 
mistaken  on  the  subjectof  baptism,. with  respect  to  the  in- 
fants of  church  members,  and  the  mode  of  administering 
that  ordinance,  yet  I  feel  happy  in  saying,  that  they  have 
evinced  for  upwards  of  a  century  past,  that  they  have  re- 
nounced the  anarchical  principles  of  their  predecessors, 
and  that  they  are  as  firm  supporters  of  lawful  civil  govern- 
ir.ent  as  any  other  religious  denomination.  It  was  to  point 
out  to  Mr.  C.  the  daiigerous  tendency  of  those  principles 
be  has  imbibed  and  avowed 5  to  induce  him  to  review  his 
prcserd  creed;  and  to  induce  those  who  have  i;ead  his  book 
to  veil  eci  before  they  adopt  those  principles.     His  book  has 


115 

been  pubiished  at  a  most  inauspicious  period.  For  some 
years  past,  Christians  of  difterent  denominations  were 
gradually  approaching  each  other,  and  a  hope  was  enter- 
tained, that  all  who  held  the  doctrines  of  grace,  would  at 
no  very  distant  day  be  consolidated  in.to  one  impenetrable 
phalanx,  and  be  to  the  enemies  of  God,  and  of  His  Ciuist, 
'^as  terrible  as  an  army  mth  banners. "  The  writings  of 
Dr.  Mason  of  this  country,  and  of  Dr.  Hall  of  the  Baptist 
Church  in  England,  on  Christian  communion,  v/ere  produ- 
cing a  happy  effect:  but  Mr.  C's  inflammatory  publication 
is  directly  calculated  to  widen  the  breach,  as  far  as  it  may 
have  effect,  and  to  set  those  who  hold  the  same  fundamen- 
tal articles  of  religion,  in  bitter  hostile  array  against  each 
other.  I  hope,  however,  that  the  time  will  come  when  he 
will  reflect  on  this  part  of  his  conduct  with  regret:  that  he 
will  retrace  his  steps  and  repair  the  evil  which  I  am  per- 
suaded he  has  done  to  the  church  of  God,  and  the  interests 
cf  a  benevolent  religion. 

I  have  now  finished  my  re^dew  of  Mr.  C's  book.  Mr, 
C.  may  perhaps  say  that  it  is  a  brief  review  indeed;  for 
there  are  many  things  in  his  book  which  I  have  not  even 
glanced  at.  That  is  indeed  true;  but  I  expect  that  it  will 
be  admitted,  that  I  have  noticed  all  his  prominent  points, 
and  principal  arguments  against  Pedobaptism;  and  if  I 
have  overturned  these,  then,  the  minor  points  and  argu- 
ments must  necessarily  fall  vvith  them;  for  when  the  foun- 
dation is  removed,  the  superstructure  must  fall  to  the 
ground.  It  is  highly  probable  that  he  will  reply  to  these 
letters,  and  I  would  just  conclude  by  observing,  that 
should  I  reply  to  him,  it  v;\\l  be  upon  the  following  condi- 
.tions: — 1.  Ihat  my  arguments  are  to  be  met  and  combat- 
ted  by  the  word  cf  God,  or  sound  logical  reasoning;  and 
not  by  such  apostrophes  as  I  have  already  noticed,  and  tlie 
following  addressed  to  Pedobaptists  in  his  book.  **0  hu- 
man tradition,  how  hast  thou  biassed  the  judgment,  and 
blinded  the  eyes  of  them  that  should  know;  under  thy 
influence  we  strain  at  a  gnat  and  swallovv  a  camel!" — 
**^\hat  a  compound  of  inconsistencies  is  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  Pedobaptistl!!*'  2.  That  we  are  to*^hear  no 
iiOre  about  sponsors  in  baptism,  nor  of  parents  promising 
that  their  children  shall  be  religious:  such  things  areas 
absurd  and  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  Presbyterian  Pedo- 
baptists. as  they  are  in  his,     *S,  Tsor  any' more  bills  of 


116 

fare  for  dinner  on  occasion  of  the  baptism  of  the  children  of 
right  honourable  or  dishonourable  men.  An  intelligent  pub- 
lic should  never  be  insulted  v/ith  such  miserable  stuff  in- 
stead of  argument.  Perhaps,  Mr.  C.  thinks  himself  en- 
titled to  a  little  indulgence  in  such  things,  as  he  tells  us 
in  the  conclusion  of  his  book,  that  he  has  a  dash  of  satire 
in  his  constitution,  and  \yhich  he  finds  it  difficult  to  sup- 
press; or  to  use  his  own  language,  he  has  a  ''genius  natu- 
rally inclined  to  irony,  which  he  has  often  to  deny." 
Well,  although  ridicule  is  not  a  test  of  truth,  yet  as  it  is 
of  use,  for  exposing  and  correcting  buffoonery,  pedantry, 
extravagant  opinians,  and  extravagant  and  immodest  pre- 
tensions to  superior  talents  and  attainments,  he  has  my 
full  and  free  consent  to  indulge  it  liberally  against  any 
thing  of  that  kind  in  these  letters,  or  any  thing  else,  that 
deserves  the  satiric  lash.  But  it  must  be  irony;  for  gen- 
uine satire  is  one  thing,  and  punning  on  letters  in  the  al- 
phabet, quibbling  on  single  words,  horrific  apostrophising, 
and  empty  declamation,  are  another.  To  such  things  or 
such  like  things,  I  will  assuredly  never  again  reply.  Once 
is  enough;  perhaps  too  much. 


LETTER  V. 

I  HAVE  said  in  the  close  of  the  last  letter,  that  should 
Mr.  C.  reply,  I  would  reply  to  him  on  the  following  con- 
ditions only, — that  we  should  have  no  more  of  that  empty 
and  tremendous  apostrophising  to  Pedobaptists  in  general^ 
and  to  the  Pedobaptist  clergy  in  particular,  with  whicli 
his  book  abounds:  with  other  extraneous  matter  then  men- 
tioned and  which  had  not  the  most  distant  relation  to  the 
subject  of  controversy.  After  much  threatening,  and  a 
lapse  and  labour  of  twelve  months,  Mr.  C.  has  at  length 
published  '^Strictures"  on  three  of  the  foregoing  letters, 
and  called  to  his  aid  another  \\Titer  with  the  signature  of 
Philalethes.  As  Mr.  C.  with  a^  single  exception,  haa 
substantially  complied  with  the  proposed  conditions,  I 
therefore  feel  myself  at  liberty,  and  am  induced  by  other 
considerations,  to  reply  to  those  stricturesj  Philalethes 
shall  also  be  noticed  in  the  proper  place.  It  is  true,  that 
Mr.  C.  has  given  full  scope  to  what  he  calls  his  ^^ genius 
for  ii'ony,"  or  ridicule,  but  as  I  trust  I  shall  shew  by 
sound  argument  that  it  is  pointless  and  harmless,  I  shall 
overlook  it  at  present,  and  not  reply  in  the  same  style- 
For  aith.ough  ridicule  is  of  use  when  genuine,  and  applied 
to  proper  subjects;  and  although  I  think  I  could  manage 
that  weapon  full  as  well  as  he  can;  and  I  would  not  wish 
for  a  better  mark  than  Mr.  C.  as  a  writer,  either  in  his 
style,  or  manner  cf  reasoning;  yet  the  sacredness  and  im- 
portance of  the  subject  and  of  the  cause  which  I  plead, 
forbid  it  on  the  present  occasion.  But  when  I  say  so,  I 
am  not  to  be  understood  as  saying,  that  if  in  the  course  of 
the  ex'amination  of  his  strictures,  any  thing  absurd  or  silly, 
or  injurious  to  the  character  of  Jehovah,  and  of  his  holy 
word,  or  to  the  interests  of  his  church,  should  present  it- 
self, that  I  sha,U  not  pourtray  it  in  what  I  consider  its  true 
colours,  and  in  sucli  language  as  the  occasion  may  demand, 
Mr.  C.  commences  his  attack  by  saying  that  I  have  a- 
postrophised  as  much  in  my  letters  as  he  has  done  in  his 
book,  and  that.  I  have  misrepresented  him  in  no  less  than 
eight  different  instances.  Those  who  have  read  my  let- 
ters know,  that  tliere  is  not  in  any  or  all  of  them,  a  single 


lis 

ai^orslrophe  to  either  Baptists,  or  Baptist  niimsters.  I  have 
indeed  made  a  few  occasional  reflections,  or  rather  drawn 
a  few  consequences  from  some  of  liis  arguments  against 
infant  baptism,  but  if  those  consequences  do  not  naturally 
and  necessarily  How  from  those  arguments,  or  if  they  are 
clothed  in  indecorous  or  unsuitable  language,  then  they 
have  operated,  and  vrill  operate  against  myself,  and  no^t. 
against  Mv,  C;  but  of  this  the  public  have  judged,  and  will 
judge.  Having  made  these  prefatory  observations,  I  shall 
now  examine  the  alleged  misrepresentations. 

''Misrepresentation  1st."  p.  6.  ''Mr.  R.  says,  Mr.  C. 
for  very  prrtdenficd  reas'cns  as  respects  his  system,  has  en- 
tireli/  overlooked  in  that  catalogue  of  covenants  which  he 
has  givoi  us  in  his  book,  another  and  distinct  covenant 
recorded  in  Gen.  15;"  but  this  Mr.  C.  denies,  and  refers 
us  to  pages  157,  and  169,  where  he  tells  us,  he  has  mention- 
ed and  considered  that  covenant  to  be  the  same  as  tlie  cove- 
nant of  circumcision..* 

I  have  again  examined  those  pages,  and  there  is  not  i}a^ 
least  mention,  nor  yet  reference  in  either  of  them  to  the 
covenant  recorded  in  the  15th  chapter  of  Genesis.  That 
that  covenant  and  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  ITth  chap- 
ter were  distinct  covenants,  is  evident  fi'om  this—that  they 
were  in  ad  e  at  difterent  periods,  for  difierent  purposes,  and 
were  ratified  by  dllierent  seiVs.  According  to  the  chro- 
nol(?gy  of  Dr.  Scott,  the  covenant  recorded  in  /.he  15ch 
was  made  15  years  before  that  recorded  in  the  17tH  chap- 
ter. The  first  of  these  covenants  had  for  its  object  the 
securing  of  the  land  of  Canaan  to  the  seed  of  Abraham^ 
nor  is  there  any  i\{\n^  else  mentioned.  In  the  second  this 
is  indeed  recognised  for  the  strengthening  of  Abraham's 
faith;  but  its  principal  provision,  as  I  Imve  shewn  from  the 
4th  chapter  to  the  Romans,  and  tlie  Sd  chapter  to  theGala-i 
tians,  compared  with  Gen.  12:  S,  and  17th  chapter,  4,  7, 
secured  the  sending  a  Redeemer  of  his  seed  into  the  world, 
too-ether  Avith  the  establishing  of  a  ciiurch  in  his  family  as 
the  medium  of  redempticm  until  that  Redeemer  would 
come;  when  the  Gentiles  should  be  taken  into  that  church 
equally  with  the  Jews.-  The  first  was  sealed  in  this  man- 
ner; "and  it  came  to  pass  that  when  the  sun  v.ent  down, 
and  it  was  dark,  behold  a  smoking  furnace  and  a  burning 
lamp  that  passed  between  those  pieces.  In  the  same  day 
the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abram  sayiiiJC^  unto  thy 


seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Eg}^t  unto 
the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates 5"  but  the  second  was 
sealed  by  the  rite  of  circumcision.  Now  Mr.  C.  saw- all 
this  in  my  first  letter,  and  if  my  reasonings,  references,  and 
deductions  from  the  passages  just  now  mentioned  v.ere 
wrong,  why  did  he  not  point  them  out,  and  not  say,  as  he 
has.  done,  that  I  have  misrepresented  him.  From  these 
observations,  his  '^prudential  reasons"  for  overlooking  the 
covenant  recorded  in  the  15th  ch!ipter  are  very  evident," 
and  very  obvious.  For  as  the  land  of  Canaan  v/as  secured 
to  the  seed  of  Abraham  by  that  covenant,  then,  it  was  not 
secured  by  the  covenant  oi  circumcision,  as  he  so  often  and 
baldly  affirms,  unless  he  can  prove  that  God  made  two  q^- 
venants  at  different  times,  and  confirmed  by  diiferent  seals, 
for  the  same  purpose.  That  the  land  of  Canaan  would  be 
mentioned  or  recognised  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
is  what  was  to  be  expected  for  the  reason  assigned?  but  I 
liave  proved  -by  the  apostle  Paul  that  that  covenant  had 
respect  to  Christ  and  his  church,  consequently  there  was  a 
church  of  God  in  the  Jev/ish  nation,  and"  how  strongly  tiiis 
operates  against  the  Baptist  system  Mr.  C.  is  fully  aAvare. 

Mr.  C  also  objects  in  this,  and  the  foliov/ing  page,  that 
1  have  said  that  the  covenant  of  cir<:umcision  secured 
'"•spiritual  blessings"  to  the  Jews,  whereas  he  tells  us  these 
consist  "'in  the  regenerating  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
pardon,  justification,  and  eternal  life.'*  I  have  not  used' 
the  word  "spiritnaP'  in  that  sense.  I  used  it  in  the  sense 
the  apostle  Paul  uses  it,  in  his  1st  epistle  te  the  Corinthi- 
'ans,  Qlh,  11,  where  speaking  of  his  preaching  and  other 
ministrations  among  them  he  says,  *'If  we  have  sown  unto 
YOU  spiritual  things,  is  it  a  great  matter  if  we  shall  reap 
vour  carnal  things.^"  And  if  I  had  not  the  apostle's  author- 
ity "for  the  use  of  the  expression,  the  sense  in  which  I  used 
it  is  so  obvious  to  every  reader,  that  Mr,  C's  objection 
shews  a  want  of  argument,  and  an  attempt  to  supply  that 
want  by  a  '*sorry  quibbling"  on  words. 

I  shall  coijsidei-  the  2d,  3d,  and  4th  aliened  misrepre- 
sentations together,  as  they  are  connected  with  one  anoth- 
er, and  refer  to  the  same  thing.  Tlie  charge  is  this — tliat 
I  represent  him  as  saying  that  there  was  no  church  of  God 
in  the  world  until  the  day  of  Pentecost,  without  referring 
to  the  page  or  pages  v.heve  he -has  said  so:  but  which  he 
deine?,  and  refers  us  to  p.  40,  and  elsewhere,  Vvhere  he 


120 

tells  us  he  has  said  that  thfere  was  such  a  church  in  th^ 
world.  I  did  consider,  and  I  still  do  consider  him  as  say-* 
ing  so.  Mr.  W.  had  produced  Acts  7:  36 — "This  is  he 
that  was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness,"  as  a  proof  that 
the  Jewish  nation  were  a  church  of  God  in  the  fullest  ex- 
tent of  the  word,  or  a  people  set  apart  for  the  worship  and 
service  of  Jehovah,  and  to  whom  were  given  for  this  pur- 
pose ordinances  of  divine  appointment  as  the  means  of 
gi'ace,  and  the  medium  of  acceptable  worship.  .  If  Mr.  C. 
acknowledged,  and  now  acknowledges  this,  where  was  the 
use  of  the  criticism  on  the  word  ekklesia  in  p.  41,  as  signi- 
fjing  any  kind  of  an  assembl}',  lawful  or  unlawful j  and 
wjb^t  the  meaning  of  the  following  quotation  from  page  42. 
"Thus  the  word  ekklesia,  or  church,  was  used  by  the  holy 
* 'penmen  of  the  New  Testament  to  denote  any  sort  of  an 
''assembly.  Like  the  word  synagogue,  the  epithet  made 
*'it  either  an  assembly  of  Jews,  "or  a  synagogue  of  Satan'* 
^' — this  criticism  I  am  confident  neither  my  opponent  nor 
*'any  man  acquainted  v/ith  the  Greek  will  deny.  Hence 
"it  follows  that  this  quotation  from  the  7th  of  Acts  proves 
^''nothing  favour  able  to  his  views,  inasmuch  as  it  means  no 
"more  than  an  assembly  or  congregation  in  the  wilderness, 
'■'■without  any  regard  to  the  character  of  it.  It  was  an  as- 
"sembly  or  church  of  Jews,  and  not  an  assembly  of  Chris- 
"tians,  or  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ.*' 

Without  noticin>^  any  farther  the  silliness  of  the  obser- 
vation, "ihat  the  church  in  the  wilderness"  could  not  be 
"an  assembly  of  Christians;"  I  appeal  now  to  any  reader, 
and  to  every  reader,  if  I  had  not  ground  for  saying  that  Mr. 
C.  denied  that  there  was  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish 
nation,  in  the  sense  in  wliich  I  have  explained  the  word. 
But  Mr.  C.  to  use  one  of  his  own  classical  expressions,  has 
Ids  "come  ofl',"  for  he  tells  us,  that  there  is  a  great  diiFer- 
ence  betvvixt  the  phrase,  "a  church  of  God,"  and  the  plirasc 
"the  church  of  Jesus  Christ;"  and  he  refers  me  to  Mur- 
ray's English  Grammar  who  will  tell  me  that  there  is  a 
great  diiFerence  betwixt  the  phrase  "//ie  son  of  a  king"  and 
"«  son  of  a  king."  There  is  a  difference  wi*h  respect  to 
the  designation  of  the  individuals,  but  none  whatever  that 
affects,  or  can  affect  their  character  and  relation  as  sons; 
for  "a  son  of  a  king,"  is  as  much  the  son  of  a  king,  as  the 
person  who  may  be  dcsigr.ated  as"//ie  son  of  a  king;"  or  in 
other  v/ords  the  article  the^  or  «,  affects  not  their  sonship. 


121 

Mr.  C.  is  OiFended  because  I  called  sacK  things  quibbling, 
and  if  it  is  not,  I  know  not  what  quibbling  is.  But  as  he 
places  so  much  strcss  on  the  definite  article  the  in  this  case, 
I  hope  it  will  end  this  part  of  the  controversy,  and  convince 
idm  that  the  <:hurch  in  the  tvilderness  was  a  church  of  God 
in  tlie  fullest  extent  of  the  word,  when  I  tell  him  that  4n 
the  Septuagint  the  word  translated  churchy  has  the  defi- 
nite article  attached  to  it.  It  is  te  ekklesia,  "the 
church;''  the  very  Avord  used  in  Acts  2:  47,  and  20:  28, 
to'denote  what  Mr.  C.  calls  "the  church  of  Jssus  Christ.** 

But  Mr.  C.  has  another  distinction  in  support  of  his  hj~ 
pothesis;  for  it  is  not  only  an  hypothesis,  but  as  I  shall  shew 
in  the  proper  place,  it  is  worse  than  an  hypothesis.  It  is 
this — "the  Jews  were  the  typical  congregation  or  church 
of  Go<l,  but  christians  are  the  real  congregation  or  church 
of  God.^'  And  does  the  circumstance  of  the  Jewish  church 
bein^  typical  prove  that  it  was  a  false  church  of  God,  for 
real  is  opposed  to  that  which  \sfahe.  But  passing  by  this, 
lest  it  should  be  called  quibbling,  he  might  as  well  say  that 
the  sacrifices  oftered  by  Abel,  Abraham,  Job,  and  others, 
vvere  not  rea/ sacrifices,  and  not  acceptable  to  Jehovah,  be- 
cause they  vrere  typical  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  In 
our  nature.  Perhaps  he  means  by  the  word  "Christians,'' 
regenerated  persons.  These,  are  indeed  a  component 
part  of  the  church  of  God,  and  constitute  what  is  called  the 
invisible  church,  but  there  never  was,  and  perhaps  never 
v,-ill  be  a  period  wherein  the  church  was  entirely  composed 
of  such,  no,  'not  even  amongst  Mr.  Cs  friends,  the  Bap- 
tists. Shrewd  and  intelligent  deceivers  can  thrust  them- 
selves into  any  Church,  and  even  the  well-meaning  are  of- 
t«n  deceived,  and  suppose  that  to  be  a  work  of  saving 
grace  in  their  hearts,  which  they  after^vards  find  proceeded 
from  another  cause.  But  why  all  this  contemptible  quib- ' 
bliiig  about  definite  and  indefinite  articles;  and  why  all  this 
saying,  and  unsaying,  and  saying  the  same  thing  again? 
This!  apprehend — he  saw  that  it  would  be  dangerous  even 
with  some  of  his  friends,  to  deny  positively  that  there  was 
a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation,  and  to  admit  it,  sap- 
ped the  foundation  of  his  system.  But  we  will  meet  with 
this  subject  again  wherein  Mr.  C's  views  of  the  Jews  and 
of  the  Jewish  church  will  be  more  fully  developed. 

'^ Misrepresentation  oth.^^ — *'Mr.  R.  declares  that  Mr. 
C.  savs  that  the  church  of  Christ  was  built  upon  the  anos- 
"12 


1£2 

ties  alone.*' — I  have  shewn  that  Mr.  C.  says  tb^t  there  was 
no  real  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation,  it  %11oavs  then 
bj  inevitable  consequence  that  what  he  cdfli^s  the  real 
church  of  God  could  notbebuiltupon  the  Jewish  prophets  5 
but  the  apostle  says  that  it  was  <'bui]t  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chiet  corner  stone.-' 

*'Jiz5TejDrc5€?i/cf2on  6th.*'— "Mr,  R.  writes,  Mr.  C.  has 
another  argument  against  iiifant  baptism  which  he  pro- 
nounces p.  SO  (31)  and  elsev/here,  as  settling  the  point  at 
once.  It  amounts  to  this.  The  scripture  direction  res- 
pecting baptism  is,  believe,  and  be  baptized,  but  infants 
are  incapable  of  believing,  therefore  they  are  not  to  be  bap- 
tized." "Now  Mr.  R.  why  did  you  not  quote  my  words? 
but  you  could  not,  for  there  is  no  such  pronounced  in  30th 
(31st)  page — no,  nor  in  any  other  page  as  you  stated  it." 

I  did  not  say  that  the  syllogism  is  there  in  the  very  words 
T  have  stated,  but  the  premises  of  the  syllogism  are  there, 
or  I  am  greatly  mistaken.  In  p.  22,  Mr.  W.  adduced  the 
11th  chapter  to  tlie  Romans  as  a  proof  that  the  Jev/ish  na- 
tion under  the  metaphor  of  a  good  olive  tree  were  consti- 
tuted a  church  of  God  by  the  ordinance  of  circumcision, 
and  that  the  christian  church  v/as  ingrafted  into  it.  In  re- 
ply Mr.  C.  says  in  pa^e  31,  "that  infants  are  excluded  f^m 
any  participation  in  this  good  olive,  seeing  \\\VLt faith  is  re- 
quired to  any  enjoyment  of  its  root  and  fatness,  and  the 
only  means  of  ingrafting  into  it."  You  will  now  judge 
who  it  is  that  has  misrepresented  the  other;  and  how  he 
could  bring  forward  such  a  charge,  v/hen  his  whole  book, 
and  the  whole  Baptist  system  is  predicated  on  the  princi- 
ple that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  because  they  are 
incapable  of  believing. 

^'Misrepresentation  7th." — That  I  represent  him  as 
< 'defying  all  Christendom  on  the  subject  of  baptism." — So 
I  understood  him  in  more  places  than  one,  and  I  think  that 
there  is  scarcely  a  person  who  has  read  his  book,  but  will 
say  that  they  have '-m^erstood  him  as  I  have.  It  seems 
however  that  he  confines  the  ^''defying  ivords^'^  to  one  par- 
ticular point,  but  as  that  point  has  a  strong  bearing  on  the 
subject,  it  is  no  misrepresentation,  nor  statement  that  can 
aifect  his  arguments  in  the  smallest  degree. 

"•Misrqiresentation  8tii." — That  I  represent  him  as  say- 
ing that  the  primitive  fathers  of  the  church  were  incompe- 
tent and  incredible  v,  itnesses  for  facts;  v.hereas  he  has  said. 


153 

in  p.  110,  »*that  many  of  them  were  good  men,  and  faithful 
witnesses  of  facts.'' 

I  acknowledge  that  I  had  read,  and  recollected  Mr.  C's 
words  now  quoted  wlien  I  wrote  that  he  represents  those 
fathers  as  witnesses  not  worthy  of  credit;  nor  had  I  the 
most  distant  apprehensioa  that  either  he  or  any  other  per- 
son who  had  read  his  book  would  ever  charge  me  with  mis- 
representing him;  as  I  considered  them  as  words  without 
meaning,  or  at  best  as  words  of  mere  finesse,  designed  to 
cover,  and  render  somev/hat  palatable  the  torrent  of  abuse 
he  was  pouring  out  on  their  characters;  and  that  every  oth- 
er reader  would  be  of  the  same  opinion.    The  point  at  issue 
at  the  time  betwixt  him  and  Mr.  W.  was  this.     Mr.  W. 
produced  extracts  from  tlie  writings  of  those  fathers  as  t'ney 
are  usually  styled,  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  infant 
baptism  was  practised  in  the  church  in  their  day.     Mr.  C. 
endecfvonred  to  m.ake  those  extracts  speak  a  different  lan- 
guage.    This  was  fair,  provided  lie  could  do  so,  without 
perverting  their  Vvords;  but  no  farther  should  he.have  gone, 
if  he  believed  them  to  be  "good  men,  and  faithful  witnesses 
of  facts."     Eut  instead  of  this,  he  assails  them  with,  and 
throws  upon  them  all  that  moral  filth,  v/ith  which  the  his- 
tory of  the  Socinian  Robinson  abounds;  aiihough  he  knew 
at  the  same  time  that  Mr.  J.  P.  Campbell  has  repeatedly 
detected  Robinson  of  falsehood,  and  v/ith  slandering  the 
character  of  those  fathers.     I  would  now  ask,  v.'hat  was 
the  meaning  of  all  this,  and  what  possible  relevancy  could 
it  have  on  the  part  of  Mr.  C,  but  to  destroy  or  lessen  their 
character  as  witnesses;  for  the  credibility  of  a  v/itness  may 
be  completely  destroyed  without  charging  liim  in  direct 
terms  with  lying,  or  a  disregard  for  truth.     And  indeed 
Mr.  C.  himself  in  p.  108,  speaks  of  those  fathers  in  such 
terms  as  impeaches  at  the  same  time,  their  competency  and 
credibility  as  vvitnesses.     "Suppose  these  very  men  them- 
selves (says  he)  had  taught  and  practised  infant  baptism 
(which  however  with  all  their  errors  they  did  not)  would 
it  have  been  farther  from  Wq  doctrine  taught  in  tne  New 
Testament  than  the  notions  they  entertained;  and  how 
much  is  their  teztimony  worth  on  any  doctiinal  point  not 
clearly  revealed  in  the  New  Testament.  - '     Again — "The 
most  orthodox  of  the  fathers  v\ere  full  of  wild  notions  and 
extravagant  fancies  that  would  dishonour  the  lowest  grade 
of  Christians  amongst  iis.''^     Here  let  it  be  remembered 
that  Mr.  C.  affirms,  that  supposing  they  had  "taught  and 


1:24 

praetised  infant  baptism,"  yet  tlieir  '^testimony  is  of  littTo 
^orth"  on  account  of  the  wild  notions  which  they  held. 
Some  of  them  indeed  held  some  '^fanciful  theories,''  and 
I  liave  no  objection  to  say  errors;  but  none  of  them  denied 
uiedo-ctrine  of  original  sin,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  th^e 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  for  sin  by  the  merit  of  hisbioocT, 
'.vl'.ich  the  Baptist  historian  Robinson  denied,  and  whose 
slanderous  tilth  he  pours  upon  them  with  an  unsparing 
band.  And  now  if  Mr.  C.  will  produce  one  or  two  can- 
did, disinterested  and  intelligent  persons  w^ho  have  read 
tliat  part  of  the  debate,  and  who  will  say,  that  they  did  not 
understand  him  as  endeavouring  to  destroy  or  lessen  the 
credibility  of  those  fa  timers,  then,  I  will  promptly  acknowl- 
edge  my  mistake,  and  as  promptly  repair  any  injury  I  may 
be  convinced  his  character  may  nave  received  by  what  I 
have  written  on  tltat  point,     I  may  have  mistaken  him. 


tions  have  very  little  reference  to  the  main  question,  and 
that  they  must  be  uninteresting  to  the  reader.  I  will  only 
say,  that  I  would  not  have  noticed  the  alleged  misrepre- 
sentations at  all  as  they  respected  myself,  had  I  not  been 
aware  that  my  not  noticins;  them  vrould  have  been  interpre- 
ted  as  so  many  arguments  for  tne  Baptist,  and  agamst  the 
Pedobaptist  system.  Whatever  concerns  myself  individ- 
ually shall  be  avoided  as  much  as  possible  in  this,  and  the 
following  1  etters.. 

In  pges  il,  12,  Mr.  C.  ahks  me  in  ids  own  njanneri 
but  which  I  shall  not  imitate,  ^•by  what  authority  I  have 
said  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  an  eccJc^iceshcal 
covenant  whereby  Jehovah  was  pleased  to  bind  hin>self  by 
the^  seal  of  circumcision  to  send  a  Redeemer  of  the  family 
of  Abraham  into  the  w^orld,"  'nvhen  no  such  thing  is  once 
mentioned  nor  even  hinted  at,  in  the  wiiole  transactioni^ 
nor  is  such  covenanted  by  the  seal  of  circumcision  in  the 
whole  Bible?" 

I  answer  by  the  authority  of  the  apostle  Paul,  who  in. 
Gal.  3:  8,  quotes  one  of  the  provisions  of  that  covenant  and 
applies  it  to  Christ.  ''And  the  scripture  foreseeing  that 
iiedwovdd  jtisfify  i\\Q  heathen  through /caV/i  preached  be- 
fore the  Gospel  to  Abrahain  saying,  in  tliec  shall  all  natitms 
^^  lilessed.-'  The  heathen,  "says  the  apostle,  w^ould  be 
iustified  thv^-^'gii  faith;  not  surely  in  Abraha^n,  but  by  faith 


125 

iii  Christ  designated  in  the  words,  "In  thee  shaU  natioiia 
be  blessed,"  because  he  descended  from  Abraham  accord- 
ing to  the  flesk.  In  pursuing  his  subject  the  Apostle  styles 
this  very  covenant,  "the  covenant  of  God  in  Christ''  (eis 
ChristonJ  because  it  had  relation  not  only  to  Christ  him- 
self, but  to  his  church,  as  is  clear  from  the  v/ords  of  the  8th 
verse — "preached  the  Gospel  to  Abraham."  All  this  I 
have  said  in  my  first  letter,  and  it  behooved  Mr.  C.  to  have 
overturned  it  if  he  could.  As  the  viev/s  I  have  given  of 
these  passages  overturn  the  very  foundation  of  his  system 
his  friends  and  the  public  undoubtedly  expected  this  from 
him,  or  at  least  that  lie  would  make  the  attempt.  But  he 
has  carefully  avoided  it,  and  tries  to  divert  their  minds  from 
the  point  by.  sneering  at  what  he  calls  "my  new  discovery.'* 

But  Miv  C.  may  say,  that  the  passages  I  have  quoted 
from  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  have  reference  to  the  co- 
venant  recorded  in  the  12th,  whereas  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision is  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Genesis.  I 
have  assigned  my  reasons  why  I  consider  those  two  coven= 
ants  as  he  styles  them,  to  be  one  and  the  same,  and  it  behoo- 
ved him  also  to  have  overturned  my  arguments  if  he  could. 
But  this  he  has  not  even  attempted,  but  taken  the  shorter, 
and  to  himself  the  more  convenient  method  of  pointless  ri- 
dicule.— His  friends  must  feel  mortified  and  disappointed. 
As  for  my  styling  that  covenant  "an  ecclesiastical  cov- 
enant," I  cannot  see  any  impropriety,  but  a  propriety  in 
doing  so.  The  words  "covenant  of  circumcision,"  as  it 
is  styled  by  Stephen,  are  rather  indefinite,  implying  only 
that  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  that  covenant,  and  it  is 
incumbent  on  every  man  who  writes  so  as  to  be  under- 
stood, to  tell  his  readers  in  what  sense  he  understands 
such  expressions. 

In  p.  13,  Mr.  C.  calls  upon  me  for  the  proof  of  a  syllo- 
gism in  favour  of  infant  baptism  extracted  from  the 'wri- 
tings of  Mr.  Peter  Edwards. 

A  syllogism  if  fairly  constructed,,  like  an  axiom,  in- 
volves its  own  evidence;  if  not,  it  is  sophistical,  llie  sj\- 
logism  alluded  to  was,  and  is  before  him.  If  it  is  sophis- 
tical,  he  should  have  shewn  it.  Tliis,  his  friends  also  ex- 
pected from  him 5 -but  instead  of  this,  he  calls  upon  me  to 
prove  what  if  correctly  stated  proves  itself.  The  reason 
of  this  silly  demand  doubtless  was,  that  he  found  it  intan- 
gible^ at  least  bvhiniself/       "  '  ' 


126 

I  iiave  said  in  my  first  letter  tliat  in  tlie  time  of  Abra- 
nam  "the  privileges  of  the  church  were  enlarged  by  the 
appointment  of  circumcision  as  a  mode  of  initiation  for  the 
males,  iniimte  wisdom  seeing  that  the  ancient  mode  of  sa- 
crifice answered  all  the  purpose  to  the  fem.ales;  females  as 
well  as  males  being  permitted  to  eat  of  the  sacrifices." 
From  this  Mr.  C.  draws  the  following  consequences  in 
page  IS.  "1st.  nd^llifants  in  the  church  for  2400  years — 
Sd,  no  females  is  -the  Jewish  church  if  circumcision  ivere 
the  initiatory  ritej*'  after  which  he  tries  t^  ridicule  theidea. 
of  circumcision  being  an  initiatory  rite  for  the  males,  be- 
cause it  was  painful. 

The  iirst  of  the  foregoing  consequences  is  founded  on 
the  assumption  that  by  males  and  {4m-al«s  I  meant  adults 
only.  But  I  have  nof  said  so,  and  that  I  meant  infants  as 
well  as  adults  Mr.  C.  might  have  knovvn  from  a  preceding 
sentence,  where  speaking  of  the  church  in  the  patriarchal 
age,  I  have  said,  "that  every  head  of  a  family  was  king 
and  priest  of  the  family^  and  offered  up  sacrifice  the  only 
mode  of  initiation^  medium  ofv/orship,  and  mean  ofgrace^ 
4hat  we  read  of  at  that  time,  both  on  his  own  behalf^  and 
oni:)ehalf  of  hisfamily^^ — a  word  that  impliesy  and  in- 
ducies  in  it,  the  infant  as  well  as  the  adult,  the  female  as 
Well  as  the  male.  The  second  consequence  is  flatly  con- 
tradicted by  these  words,  ^'intinite  wisdom  seeing  that  sa- 
crifice answered  all  the  purpose  to  the  females,,  females  as;^ 
well  as  males  being  permitted  to  eat  of  the  sacrifices.'*' 
And  if  the  circumstance  of  circumcision  being  a  "painful 
rite,"  was  a  reason  why  it  should  not  have  been  appointed 
as  a  mode  of  initiation  into  the  church  for  males,  the  same 
reason  if  good,  's\ill  prove  that  it  should  not  have  been  ap- 
pointed fur  any  pui*pose  whatever.  "  >^  • 
In  pages  14,  15,  16,  Mr.  C.  boldly  defends  what  he  Iras- 
said  in  the  28ih  page  of  his  hooky— ''that  Judaism  and 
Gentilism  were  loth  distinct  from,  and  esse^itially  oppo- 
site to  Christianity:^  He  draws  his  materials  of  defence 
from  the  alleged  vrorthlessness  of  the  Jewish  dispensatioi^ 
and  ordinances  as  styled  by  the  apostle  Paul,  "th£  rain- 
ibtraticn  of  death  and  condemnation^' — ''ivcak  andleggar- 
hj  [dements*^— carnal  cGmmandmenis  hnpo'sed  vpon  them 
iiUihe  time  of  reformation---''^ a  yoke  cfhondage^^ — and  at 
best  but  the  "shadow  of  good  things  to  come,"  and  which 
'-made  nothing  perfect'- — that  the  same  a[)Ostle  hath  said, 
'^ij'ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothings ■ — - 


12T 

iiom  the  coiTuplion  of  the  Jewish  doctrines  by  the  Pliari- 
sees  and  Sadducees — and  from  the  wickedness'of  the  Jews: 
who  crucified  Christ,  and  persectited  his  followers. 

This  is  indeed  a  horrible  picture  of  Judaism  as  dra^vn  by 
the  pencil  of  Mr.  C.  and  as  it  seems  he  understands,  and 
Vvoujd  wish  us  to  understa.nd  some  of  the  foregoing  quota-, 
tions:  and  if  true,  it  is  no  wonder  that  he  classes  it  with 
"Gentilism,  and  as  esseiitialiy  opposir^-to  Christianity;*' 
and  if  I  yiev/ed  it  as  he  does,  1  coul^  not  believe  that  Je- 
hovah the  author  of  it  v.as  aholyBeing;  yea  more,. I  would 
join  with  Thomas  Paine,  in  saying  that  the  Old  Testament 
was  ''the  word  of  the  devil." — But  let  us  exainine  the  pic- 
ture a  little. 

In  2  Cor.  3:  7,  the  apostle  doe&  indeed  style  ihe  Jewish 
dispensation,  comprehending  in  it  the  covenant  at  Sinai, 
a  *'minibtration  oi  death  and  condemnation  written  and. 
enpaven  in  stones."     But  why  does  he  style  it  so?  Does 
he  mean,  or  could  he  mean  that  the  whole  of  it  led  down  to 
eternal  death  all  who  embraced  it?  This,  as  has  been  ob- 
served, would  reflect  on  the  ciiaracter  of  the  God  of  IsraeU 
as  promulgating  and  enjoining  a  dispensation  that  would 
lead  down  to  eternal  death  and  condemnatioR  all  who  re- 
ceived it.     What  then  was  his  meaning?  This — that  the. 
mo,ral  law  requiring  justly,  perfect  obedience,  and  as  justly 
dencijncing  the  curse  of  iiie^  Law-giver  for  the  least  diso- 
bedience, was. promulgated,  as  it  v/ as,  amidst  terrible  thun- 
derisgs  and  lightnings,  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  not 
only  the  Jevv's,  hut  us,  that  'iby  the  deeds  of  the  law 
no  flesh  can  be  justified,"  because  "all  have  sinned :"  and  to 
induce  the  Jews  to  look  for  justification  to  him  who  was  pro- 
mised to  come.  *^i€>;take  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 
,  ^elf,  typified  in  the  vanous  sacrifices  enjoined  upon  thejnf. 
^.^— and  lis  to  look  also  to  the  same  Redeemer  as  come,  and 
who  has  shed  his  blood  for  the  remission  of  sin,  and  whose 
.  blocd  when  received  by  faith  ''cleanseth  from  all  sin," 
That  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  the  passage  is-, 
evident  from  this,  that  in  the  words  that  immediately  fol- 
low, .he  styles  this  very  ^^ministratioir^  "glorious,"  but 
the  ministration  of  the  spirit,  or  the  Gospel  dispensatioj). 
as  more  ''glorious;"  because  the  one  as  typical  was  onlj| 
a  "shadow  of  good  things  to  come,"  but  the  other  hpld^ 
out  to  our  view  "the  lamb  slain  from  the  fouridaticnof  the 
world"  as  come,  and  dyingthe  just  ftr  the  unjust! 

In  Gal.  4:  9,  the  apostle  also  styles  the  ordinances  of  the 


im 

Jewish  dispensation  and  cHurch,  <«weak  and  beggarly  ele- 
ments." But  in  what  sense  were  they  so?  and  on  v/haf 
occasion  did  he  say  so?  They  were  weak  and  beggarly  only 
w'hen  compared  with  the  simpler  and  more  significant  ordi- 
nances of  the  Christian  dispensation.  In  the  one^they 
had  reference  to  a  Redeemer  who  was  to  come;  in  the  oth- 
er tlley  respect  him  as  already  come;  and  in  this  sense,  I 
apprehend  it  is,  ^st^,  "the  least  iiv^the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  greater  than  Johii^aptist,"  because  he  died  before  the 
Christian  dispensation  commenced^  Besides,  the  persons 
to  whom  the  apostle  addressed  those  words  were  Gentiles 
by  extraction,  and  had  been  seduced  by-  the  Judaizing- 
teachers  to  observe  the  Jewish  in  conjunction  with  the  or- 
dinances of  the  Christian  dispensation^  the  apostle  there- 
fore used  as  strong  language  as  the  subject  could  possibly 
admit,  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  them  of  their  folly  and^ 
mistake. 

InHeb.  9: 10,  the  same  ordinances  ure  styled  ^'carnal  or- 
dinances" imposed  on  the  Jews  '"until  the  time  of  refor- 
mation." 

The  word  * 'carnal"  or  fleshly,  is  used  in  the  scriptures 
in  different  meanings  or  acceptations.  In  Ez.ekiel  36:  26, 
it  is  used  to  signify  a  penitent  and  believing  heart. — "I 
will  take  away  the  heart  of  stone,  and  eive  you  an  heart  of 
flesh."  In  the  writings  of  Paul  it  is  frequently  used  to 
denote  the  depravity  of  the  human  heart-:7-*-'The"  carnal 
mind  is  enmity  against  God."  As  Mr.  C^S  object -is  to 
prove  that  Judaism  was  as  wicked  a  thing  as  Gentilism,  it 
would  seem  that  in  the  preceding  quotation  he  understood 
tlie  words  in  this  last  sense,  for  if  it  had  reference  to  any 
thing  spiritual  and  diWne,  then  Judaism  could  not  have 
been  as  bad  as  Gentilism;  and  indeed  I  have  met  with  the 
words  '^carnal  ordinances"  so  introduced  and  applied,  bj 
Baptist  writers,  that  it  appeared  to  me  that  they  meant  bj 
them  something  wicked  and  depraved.  But  that  the  words 
have  reference  to  the  various  washings  enjoined  by  the 
Levitical  law,  and  which  signified  the  necessity  of  the 
cleansing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  evident  from 
the  words  immediately  preceding.  The  design  of  the 
apostle  in  the  chapter  was  to  shew  that  the  Jewish  ordinan- 
ces v/ere  superseded  by  those  appointed  by  Christy  and 
alluding  to  those  of  them  tliat  consisted  in  the  observation 
of  clean  and  unclean  m.eats,  and  their  different  ablutions, 
he  says,  "which  stood  only  in  meats  aed  diinks,  anddi  • 


120 

verse  washings^  and  cariial  ordinances  imposed  upon  thein. 
until  the  time  of  reformation."  Some  interpreters  under- 
stand by  the  ^ 'meats  and  drinks"  in  this  verse,  the  meat 
and  drink  offerings  that  accompanied  the  sacrifices?  and  by 
the  * '■diverse  washings,"  the  washine;  of  the  sacrifices,  anci 
others,  those  enjoined  on  the  priests  and  people;  but  in 
whichever  of  those  senses  we  understarm  the  apostle,  those 
ordinances  were  not  wicked  thiiigs  ir.  themselves,  noF  de- 
siyied  to  lead  to  Vvickedners,  but  to  lead  to  the  blood  of 
the  atonement  for  pardon,  and  to  the  spirit  of  grace  for  pu- 
rification. And  although  they  are  said  to  have  been  "im- 
posed on  the  Jews  until  the  time  of  reforaiation,"  or  until 
the  Messiah  should  come;  and  although  they  are  called  "a 
yoke  of  bondage^"  because  they  were  numerous  and  ex- 
pensive, yet,  as  they  were  appointed  by  infinite  wisdom, 
they  were  doubtless  best  suited  to  that  age  of  the-  woiid, 
and  to  the  character  of  the  Jewish  nation. 

In  regard  to  what  the  apostle  says  to  the  Gaiatians  (5: 2.) 
"Ifye  be  circumcised  Christ  shall  pro^fit  you  nothing;^  it 
is  evident  from  thepreceduigand  subsequent  contexts,  that 
he  alluded  to  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  Judaizing  teachers 
and  which  some  of  the  Gaiatians  embraced,  thatto  be  cii-eum- 
cised,  entitled  the  circum.cised  person  to  salvation,  as  some 
think  in  the  present  day  that  they  shall  be  saved  because  they 
have  been  baptized.  Both  opinions  are  founded  on  a  dan- 
gerous-ewor,  and  lead  from  Christ,  and  is  a  virtual  renun- 
ciation cf  the  merit  of  his  blood.  Circumciaion  was  ap- 
pointed as  a  mean  of  induction  for  the  males  into  thcJew- 
ish  church,  and  for  obtaining  the  circumcision  of  the  hearty 
and  baptism  is  nothing  more,  except  that  like  circumcision 
it  is  a  seal  of  the  baptized  believers  interest  in  tlie  righte- 
ousness of  faith.  These  observations  explain  what  the' 
apostle  meant  when  he  says  in  the  following  verse,  "he  that 
was  circumcised  was  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law,"  mor- 
al and  cercinonial,  or  to  keop  it  without  failure  in  a  single 
instance,  if  he  expected  life  by  it,  and  which  constrained 
him  to  say  in  the  next  follovying  verse,  '^'Christ  is  become 
of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justitied  by  the. 
law;  ye  ?re  fallen  from  grace." — Mr.  C  understands  the 
words  "if  ye  be  circumcised  Clsrist  shall  pro-fit  you  nothv 
ing,"  ris  implj'ing  that  there  was  no  profit  whatever  in  cir- 
cumcision, yea,  he  tells  us  in  p.  14,  that  it  is  ''^repugnant 
to  Cfirhiiamty. "  Kow  this  is  setting  the  apostle  in  oppo- 
sition tc  ).ln\re!f,  for  he  says  in  Eom,  5 :  1,2,  th^t  it  was  of 


ISO 

?nuch  piolifc  while  tke  Jevfish  dispensation  lasted.  "What 
advantage  then  hath  the  Jew,  and  what  jirofd  is  there  in 
circumcision?  Much  every  vjay^  but  chiefjly  because  that 
unto  thein  were  committed  ^}\q,  oracles  of  God."  Such  is 
the  deleterious  influence  of  Mr.  C's  system,  that  it  has  led 
him  flatly  to  contradict  the  apostle,  and  to  represent  Jeho- 
vah as  appointing  an  ordinance  that  in  itself  was  "repug- 
nant to  ChrisiianitY. "  I  will  add  on  this  point  that  I  have 
all  along  said  ilhat'.circumcision  was  a  type  of  baptism,  and 
Mr.  C.  cannot  point  to  the  place  where  I  have  said  "that 
it  was  not  a  type  of  baptism."  i  have  also  said  that  bap- 
tism has  taken  t'ne  '^room  of  circumcision"  in  xho,  cliurch 
of  God,  and  produced  Col.  2:  II,  12,  as  a  proof,  and  he 
has  not  dared  to  exatr/me  that  proof. 

To  Mr.  G's  other  objections  to  Judaism- — the  wickedness 
of  ih^  Jews  in  the  davs  of  C'lrist — their  crucifying;  him, 
and  persecuting  his  follov/ers,  and  ihf^  corruptions  intro- 
duced into  t'le  Jewish  svstem  by  the  Ploarisees  and  Saddu- 
cees,  I  shall  just  only  observe;  that  wicked  as  the  JeAvs 
were,  it  should  be  renieinbered  that  they  did  not  crucify 
Christ  as  their  ?vles^iah,  but  as  an  impostor,  and  that  they 
persecuted  his  follov/ers,  as  the  followers  of  an  impostor. 
The  Pharisees  had  also  much  corrupted  the  Jewish  theo- 
^^gy  ^J  ^heir  traditions,  but  not  so  far  as  to  affect  its  fun- 
damental principles;  else  Christ  would  not  have  said,  as 
he  did,  to  his  disciples,  "the  scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in 
Moses'  seat,  all  ther€f^>i'c  v/hatsoever  they  bid  you  observe, 
that  obsei'\^e  and  do,  but  do  ye  not  after  their  works j  for 
they  say  and  do  not;"  nor  would  he  liave  attended,  us  he 
did,  on  the  various  ordinances  of  that  dispensation.  Mr. 
C.  seems  very  angry  with  me  because  I  notico^l  his  say- 
ing that  "Judaism  and  Gentilism  were  both  distinct  from, 
and  essentially  opposite  to  Christianity^"  and  because  I 
called  this  degradation  of  Judaism  blasphemy.  His  sys- 
tem does  indeed  necessarily  lead  to  this;  and  I  noticed  it; 
that  he  might  see  that  it  was  unscriptural  and  dangerous, 
and  I  expected  that  he  would  have  recanted  what  he  has 
said  on  that  point,  or  explained  it  so,  as  not  to  affect  the  pu- 
rity of  Jehovah  the  author  of  Judaism.  He  has  given  ua 
his  explanation,  and  instead  of  recanting  what  Iconsider 
as  blasphemy  in  terms,  he  tells  us,  p.  16,  that  "he  will  yet 
be  more  blasphemous,^^  and  as  an  evidence,  he  adds,  that 
Judaism  "in  its  effects  and  practical  bearings  is  more^ 
averse  from  Christianity  than  sheer  Gentilism^     But  how 


131 

much  more  blasphemous  he  can  be  I  know  not.  unless  he 
denies  the  Old  Testament  to  be  the  word  of  God:  and  in- 
deed his  present  system  in  its  legitimate  consequencCv^ 
leads  to  this,  and  I  would  not  be  surprised  to  hear  one  day 
that  that  was  the  case. 

Before  I  dismiss  this  point,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  ob- 
serve, that  although  Mr.  C.  tells  us  in  p.  14,  that  it  is  not 
Judaism  as  "once  instituted  by  the  Creator,"  but  as  mixed 
with  Pharisaism  and  Sadduceism,  and  corrijpted  with  the 
tradition  of  iha  Elders,  that  he  opposes  and  vilifies,  yet 
nothing  is  more  untrue.  They  are  words  of  mere  finesse, 
like  those  used  in  relation  to  tlie  ancient  fathers  of  the 
church,  and  it  would  seem,  designed  for  a  similar  pur- 
pose. The  corruptions  introduced  by  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees  are  mentioned  particularly,  and  exposed  by 
Christ  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount  and  elsewhere;  but  you 
will  have  observed,  that  Mr.  C.  does  not  mention,  nor 
refer  to  one  of  those  corruption*,  but  directs  his  fulmina- 
tions  against  Judaism  "as  once  instituted  by  the  Creator' 
— against  circumcision,  which  was  not  introduced  by  the 
Pharisees  or  Sadducees,  but  appointed  by  Jehovah  himself 
in  the  time  of  Abraham,  and  against  the  various  sacrifices 
and  v/ashings  appointed  by  the  same  authority  in  the  days 
of  Moses,  and  styled  by  Paul  carnal  ordinances,  for  the 
reasons  just  now  assigned.  But  wliy  all  this  artifice,  and 
I  m.ust  add  shameful,  but  thin  veil  of  dec^tion?  It  w^as: 
doubtless  designed  to  answer  a  double  purpose.  If  the 
picture  he  has  drawn  would  be  found  too  strong  for,  or 
displeasing  to  the  public  eye,  then,  he  could  retreat  by  say- 
ing, that  it  was  not  pure  Judaism,  but  the  corruptions  of  it 
he  opposed^  and  if  the  picture  w^ouid  be  found  to  be  not  dis- 
pleasing^ then,  it  would  counteract  the  strong  argument 
for  Pedobaptism  drawn  from  the  existence  of  a  church  of 
God  in  the  Jewish  nation;  but  rather  than  admit  this,  Mr. 
C.  is  willing  that  the  Jev/s  previous  to  the  coming  of  Christ 
should  go  down  to  eternal  "death  and  wo,"  as  it  appears 
he  v/ishes  his  rea^ders  to  understand  the  words  "ministra- 
tion of  death  and  condemnation." 

That  Mr.  C.  either  believes,  or  aSects  to  believe,  that 
the  Jewish  dispensation  and  ordinances  were  not  calcula- 
ted for,  nor  designed  as  means  for  producing  regeneration 
and  purity  of  heart  is  not  only  evident  from  the  picture  of 
Judaism  which  he  has  drawn,  but  from  his  challenging  me 
in  p.  15,  "to  produce  one  instance  ofa  Jew  bemg  ad  tnitted 


into  the  Chpistian  church  from  its  first  exhibition  on  tfio 
day  of  Pentecost,  without  professing  repentance  or  con- 
v^rsion^''  to  which  he  adds,  '"that  I  cannot  do  it,  and  he  is 
sure  I  cannot."  I  have  mentioned  in  the  third  letter  the 
eunuch  of  the  queen  of  Ethiopia,  and  Lydia,  who  were  ei- 
ther Jews  or  proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion;  and  who  in 
my  apprehensioa  were  gracious  persons,  and  were  baptized 
without  any  profession  of  repentance  and  conversion  being 
required  of  them,  understanding  those  words  in  their  ut- 
most extent  of  meaning.  Mr.  G.  has  seen  this,  why  did 
he  not  shew  that  I  was  mistaken  if  he  could.''  Bat  that  is 
not  his  manner  of  conducting  the  controversy.  His  man- 
ner you  have  seen  is,  to  deal  in  general  expressions,  and  to 
call  for  proof  on  subjects  already  discussed  and  proved, 
without  attempting  to  shew  the  inva,lidity  of  the  proof  of- 
fered. That  there  were  a  number  of  persons  in  the  Jewish 
churdi  in  the  days  of  Christ,  (perhaps  x\\^  wickedest  period 
of  the  Jewisli  history)  and  -w'ho  v/ere  regenerated  in  that 
church,  is  evident  not  only  from  the  particular  mention 
made  of  some  of  them,  but  from  what  John  says  in  his  Gos- 
pel respecting  Christ;  1:  11 — 13.  '^He  came  to  his  own^ 
and  his  own  received  him  not.  But  to  as  many  as  receiv- 
ed him,  to  them  gave  hepov/er  to  become  the  sons  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name;  which  loere  born, 
not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  fiesh,  nor  of  the  v/ill  of 
man,  hut  of  GcMP  Here,  the  persons  who  received  Christ, 
are  said  to  have  been  ^'•borji  of  God,'^  and  born  again  un- 
der that  dispensation  and  its  ordinances  which  Mr.  C.  tells 
us,  *'was  more  averse  from  Christianity  than  sheer  Gentil- 
ismP  The  discussion  of  this  point  brings  to  my  recollec- 
tion wliat  he  says  in  his  book,  p.  27,  respecting  Nathaniel— 
•^•that  he  exercised  a  neif;  faith,  and  had  other  discoveries, 
which  he  never  before  possessed,  previous  to  his  becoming 
a  Christian."  I  suppose  that  by  this  neu)  faith  Mr.  C. 
means  a  justifying  faith.  Now,  I  had  always  thought  that 
this  feith  was  the  same  with  respect  to  its  essence,  opera- 
tions, and  object,  in  the  pious  Jew,  and  the  pious  Christian, 
with  this  circumstantial  and  immaterial  difference,  that  the 
faith  of  the  pious  Jew  was  directed  to  a  Redeemer  who 
was  to  come,  but  the  faith  of  the  pious  Christian  is  directed 
to  him  as  already  come.  That  Nathaniel  had  new  discov- 
eries is  readily  admitted,  because  he  saw  and  conversed 
with  the^  Redeemer  in  the  flesh,  but  that  b.e  had  a  new  faith 
'^nth  respect  to  its  nature  and  operations  we  deny-— If  so, 


loo 

>iheii  he  could  not  have  beerx  styled,  as  he  was  by  Christ 
himself,  "an  Israelite  i/if/eei,  in  whom  there  was  no  guile.'* 
— Mr.  C.  should  never  have  talked  about  "quacks  in  the- 
ology," 


The  Socratic  metliod  of  asking  questions  is  an  ensnaring 
way  of  conducting  an  argument.  In  the  debate  with  Mr. 
W.  Mr.  C.  conducted  his  argument  generally  in  this  way, 
and  supposing  that  he  has  gained  much  advantage  by  it, 
he  has  also  asked  me  a  number  of  questions  in  pages  17, 
18,  expecting  no  doubt,  that  I  would  be  thereby  ensnared. 
1  miglit  with  the  greatest  propriety  refuse  to  answer  those 
questions,  as  the  subject  matter  of  them  has  been  discus- 
sed in  the  first  letter,  and  it  was  his  province  as  a  dispu- 
ter  and  writer  to  have  refuted  that  discussion  if  he  could. 
However  to  cutoff  every  pretension  of  avoiding  any  thing 
that  bears  on  the  point  at  issue,  I  shall  answer  those  ques- 
tions, taking  the  liberty  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  of  com- 
pressing the  longest  of  them,  but  retaining  every  thing  that 
is  relevant^  and  also  the  liberty  of  asking  him  in  my  turn 
a  few  questions,  not  for  the  purpose  of  ensnaring  him,  but 
that  he  may  see  the  real  state  of  the  question  betwixt  us  in 
a  clear  point  of  light,  and  if  it  may  be,  convinced  of  his 
error. 

"Query  1.  With  what  propriety  could  Mr.  R.  say  that 
,the.  whole  promise  of  Joel's  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the 
miraculous  gift  of  tongues  conferred  on  the  apostles — when 
no  such  miraculous  gift  of  tongues  is  mentioned  in  the 
promise." 

A.  I  have  not  said  that  th^  'of  f/^  of  Joel's  prophecy  w^as 
fulfilled  in  the  gift  of  tongues,-^  That  propliecy  contain s 
two  distinct  things — a  prediction  of  pouring  out*  the  spirit 
on  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews,  expressed  in  these 
words,  "and  it  shall  come  to  pass  afterwards  that  I  will 
pour  out  my  spirit  on  allflesh^^^  and  a  particular  promise 
to  the  Jews  which  w^as  to  take  place  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  expressed  thus,  "and  your  sons 
and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,"  and  which  was. fulfil- 
led on  the  day  of  Pentecost  when  "cloven  tongues  like  as 
of  fire  sat  on  the  followers  of  Jesus,  and  tliey  were  all  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  j  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues. 
as,the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance. "  Tliis  was  astonishing 
13 


134 

to  the  multitude  who  came  together  on  the  occasioiij  but 
Peter  accounted  for  it  bv  saying,  'Hhis  is  that  which  was 
spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel."  Your  objection  that  the 
words  ''the  gift  of  tongues"  are  not  mentioned  by  Joel  is 
of  no  avail.  It  was  included  in  the  word  "prophesy,"  and 
in  this  sense  the  word  appears  to  be  used  in  1  Cor.  14:  31. 
If  it  was  not  included,  then,  Peter  did  not  say  truth  when 
he  said,  "^/ii.9  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Jo- 
el." But  we  will  meet  with  this  «ubject  again,  under  an- 
other query,  wh^re  the  absurdity  of  your  explication  and 
application  of  this  prophecy  will  appear  in  a  glaring 
light.  , 

''Query  2.  With  what  truth  can  Mr.  R.  in  the  same 
page  say  that  Peter  urged  this  promise  as  an  argument  why 
the  Jews  and  their  children  should  be  baptized — when  Pe- 
ter says  not  one  word  directly  or  indirectly  concerning  the 
baptism  of  their  children."  '  * 

A.  I  have  not  said  so  at  all — ^but  my  answer  to  yilif 
next  query  will  explain  the  matter. 

"Query  3.  Why  should  Mr.  R.  endeavour  to  prove 
that  although  Peter  cited  Joel  2,  he  meant  Gen.  17:  7. 

A.  I  have  not  said  so.  Alluding  to  your  explanation 
and  application  of  the  words  "//le  promise^^  in  Acts  2:  39, 
as  having  reference  only  to  the  prophecj^  of  Joel,  I  have 
said  "that  whatever  that  promise  was,  it  i%  undeniable,  that 
Peter  urged  it  as  an  argument  why  the  Jews  and  their  cMl- 
dren  should  be  ba|)tized;"  and  at  the  same  time  I  offered 
►  several  reasons  why  he  must  have  referred  to  Gen.  17:  7. 
I  produced  Rom.  9:  8,  and  GaL  3:  29,  as  a  proof  of  this. 
This  you  have  seen,  and  why  did  you  not  shew  if  you  could, 
that  I  misapplied  these  p^^sages.  To  this  I  now  add,  that 
the  words  of  Jehovah  in  i^^l}.  V7: 7,  and  the  words  of  Peter 
in  Acts  2:  3.9,  when  compared  substantiate  the  position. 
The  words  of  Jehovah  are,  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee 5"  and  the  words  of  Peter  are,  "The 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children. "  The  difference 
of  the  two  passages  is  only  verbal  and  immaterial,  and  the 
argument  for  infant  baptism  deducible  from  them,  I  have 
pointed  out  pretty  fully  in  my  first  letter.  Before  I  dis- 
miss this  query,  3rou  mast  excuse  me  for  telling  you,  that 
you  have  shrunk  dishonourabiy  from  the  examination  of  this 
interesting  passage,  for  instead  of  meeting  my  arguments, 
and  discussing  them  fairly,  you  have  passedover  them,  and 
diverted  the  minds  of  your  readers  from  the  point  by  bold- 


135 

iy  asserting  that  I  have  said,  what  I  have  not  said — I  re- 
peat it,  your  friends  must  feel  disappointed  and  mortified. 

"Query  4.  Why  does  ^Ir.  R.  represent  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  exclusively  referring  to  extraordinary 
operations,  whereas  the  pronnse  of  the  Spirit  as  a  Spirit  of 
illumination,  of  wisdom,  of  prophecy,  of  comfort,  is  that 
)jroinise  which  distinguishes  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit 
from  t!ie  ministration  of  condemnatimi,  in  a;  degree,  and  to 
an  extent  unknown  to  the  Jews  and  Patriarchs;  more  espe- 
cially as  Peter  applies  the  promise  in  Joel  to  the  promise 
which  Jesu>  gave  to  his  disciples,  concerning  the  commu- 
nication of  his  Spirit,  as  a  convincer,  and  a  comforter,  after 
his  ascension  into  heaven.'^ 

^'.  A.  It  is  somewhat  strange  to  meet  with  the  Jews  and 
their  religion,  as  possessing  any  thing  good  or  spiritual,  af- 
ter the  dpeadful  anathemas  you  have  lately  poured  out  on 
thein,  and  their  "ministration  of  death  and  condemnation." 
liiu  passing  this  by;  that  part  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel  that 
has  reference  to  the  Jews  is  confined  to  "prophesying, 
dreaming  dreams,  and  seeing  visions,"  to  which  is  addeil 
"wonders  in  the  heavens  anuinthe  earth,  blood,  and  fire 
and  pillars  of  smoke;  of  the  sun  being  turned  into  darkness, 
and  the  moon  into  blood,"  which  latter  portended  the  des- 
truction of  the  Jewish  nation  and  polity :  And  I  have  shewn 
in  the  fourth  letter  of  this  v/ork  that  the  Anabaptists 
in  Germany,  v/ith  whom  I  have  also  shewn,  you  so  closely 
fraternize,  both  in  political  and  theological  principles,  had 
their  dreams  and  visions  before  they  attempted  to  overturn, 
all  government  in  church  and  state;but  1  4eny  that  dreams 
and  supposed  visions  are  the  medium  through  which  the 
Spirit  of  God,  since  the  close  of  the  canon  ofdivine  reye- 
lation,  communicates  his  illuminating,  convincing,  and 
sanctifying  influences.  *'By  the  law  (says  one  apostle)  is 
the  knowledge  of  sin,"  "and  sanctify  them  through  thy 
truth,  thy  word,  is  truth,"  is  one  of  the  petitions  which 
Christ  put  up  to  his  Heavenly  Father,  for  the  sanctificatioii 
of  his  people. 

You  confound,  Sir,  two  distinct  promises  that  has  led 
you  into  the  dangerous  system  you  have  adopted,  and  blin- 
ded your  eyes  against  the  clear,  arid  forcible  argument  for 
infant  baptism  contained  in  Acts  2;  39.  The  promise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  convincer,  sanctifier  and  comforter,  was 
given  by  Christ  previous  to  liis  death,  (and  not  after  his 
ascension,  as  you  assert;)  and  is  coutained  and  detailed  in 


156 

the  I6tb>  and  17th.  chapters  of  John;  but  by  turning  to 
Acts  1:  4,-5,  you  will  there  find  that  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  foretold  by  Joel„  and  given  to  the  apostles 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  had  refeiX'nce  to  the  miraculous 
gift  of  tongues,  and  was  foretold  by  John  Baptist  as  a  bap- 
tism "with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire,"  as  is  particu; 
larly  mentioned  by  the  inspired  historian.  I  have 
no  doubt  but  that  it  was  by  a  mistaken  application  of  that 
prophecy,  that  the  German  Anabaptists  were  led  into  all 
the  extravagancies  and  atrocities  which  they  committed: 
and  it  concerns  you,  Sir,  seriously  to  inquire,  if  your  ex- 
position and  application  of  that  prophecy  may  not  lead  your 
followers  to  the  same  atrocities.  I  will  only  farther  ob- 
serve that  although  the  prophecy  of  Joel  as  it  respected  the 
Jews  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  the  apostles 
in  the  gift  of  tongues,  yet  I  do  not  say  that  the  general" 
part  of  the  prophecy  was  not  fulfilled  in  part  at  that  time, 
or  shortly  after.  That  it  was  fulfilled  to  the  guilty,  multi- 
tude who  assembled  on  the  occasion,  so  as  to  convince  them 
of  sin  is  certain;  for  we  are  told  that  they  were  ''pricked 
in  their  heartsj^'  and  also  to. their  conversion  through  bap- 
tism as  the  mean,  as  is  apparent  from  the  42d  verse,  but  let 
it  be  remembered  that  the  gift  of  tongues  expressed  by 
"prophesying". &c.  was  conferred  on  the  disciples  only, 
and  that  Peter  in  the  16th  verse,  applied  it  to  that  circum- 
stance, and  that  only,  and  that  he  did  not,  could  not  refer 
to  it  in  tlie  39th  verse,  as  you  say  he  did,  I  shall  shortly 
prove  in  answeiing  the  6th  query. 

"Query  5.  Why  does  Mr.  R^  say  that  the  Baptists 
teach,  "Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins, — for  the  promise  is  to  you,, 
but  not  to  your  children^ — when  tliere  is  not  one  of  them  so 
ignorant  of  scripture  as  to  say  that  this  promise  meant 
baptism,  for  baptism  is  a  coinmand,  not  a  promise." 

A.  I  am  not  so  ignorant  as  to  say,  nor  did  I  say,  that 
the  word  "pron^ise"  meant  baptism;  but  I  have  said,  and 
I  still  say,  that  "the promise"  which  I  have  shewn  refers 
to  Gen.  17:  7,  is  urged  by  Peter  as  an  argument  to  induce 
those  Jews  whonl  he  addressed  to  submit  to  that  ordinance. 
Their  children  are  included  in  the  promise,  but  you  say 
that  although  they  are  included  in  the  promise  thej  were 
not  to  be  baptized.  I  drew  my  conclusion  from  the  ex- 
position which  you  and  every  otlier  Baptist  give  to  the 
passage-— if  it  is  falsely  drawn  shew  it  to  me  and  I  will  re 


cant  it.  You  should  have  done  tliis,  instead  of  covering 
vour  incoiiipetency  with  what  you  supposed  to  be  a  per- 
plexing, but  really  is  a  silly  question. 

"Query  6.  A\  hy  does  Mr.  R.  say  that  I  explained 
the  words  ''afar  off"  as  relating  to  the  remnant  of  the 
Jews  only;  when  my  words  which  he  misrepresents  are  p. 
55,  "forsaith  Peter,  the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children-' — "all  flesh" — "your  sons  and  your  daughters, 
or  your  children. "  Joel  says  32d  verse,  "and  in  the  rer?i- 
naiit  whom  the  Lord  shall  call" — Peter  says,  '-to  them  afar 
off" — "even  as  many  as  the  Lord  shall  call,"  '^'•whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles." 

A.  Passing  over  the  confused  and  clouded  manner  in 
which  j^ou  state  this  query,  I  would  observe;  that  you  ap- 
ply the  prophecy  of  Joel  to  the  words  of  Peter  Acts  2:  39, 
and  you  tell  us  in  the  55th  page  of  youi*  book,  that  no  two 
passages  "were  ever  more  clearly  identified,"  but  when 
examined  and  compared,  never  was  a  prophecy  v/ith  what 
you  call  its  fulfilment  so  unlike  each  other.  The  prophe- 
cy, as  I  have  observed,  is  introduced  with  a  general  inde- 
finite promise  of  "'pouring  out  the  Spirit  on  alljlesh.^^  This, 
you  apply  to  the  particular  promise  to  the  Jews,  "that  their 
sons  and  their  daughters  should  prophesy. "  Now,  no  ap- 
plication can  be  more  absurd  than  this,  for  the  Jews  and 
their  children  arc  not  "«//^e5/j,"  or  all  mankind.  Be- 
sides, in  your  application  you  omit  "the  servants  and  the 
hand -maidens"  on  v/ham  the  Spirit  was  also  to  be  poured, 
because  as  they  v/ere  not  the  children  of  the  Jews,  that  part 
of  tlie  prophecy  could  not  possibly  be  applied  to  Peter's 
words  verse  39th — "the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children." — The  latter  part  of  the  prophecy  in  which  you 
say  I  have  ^'inisrepresentecr^  jou,  you  have  stated  thus. 
'•Jcel  says  32d  verse,  and  in  the  remnant  whom  the  Lord 
shall  call" — Peter  says  "to  them  afar  off,  even  as  many  as 
ihe  Lord  shall  call."  I  have  shewn  in  my  first  letter  that 
the  "remnant"  means  that  part  of  the  Jewish  /fation  who 
believed  in  Christ,  and  that  the  "afar  off"  denoted  the 
Gentiles;  I  would  now  ask  you,  if  you  have  not  identified 
the  v/ords  of  Joel  and  Peter,  or  applied  the  words  "afar 
cff "  to  the  '  'remnant. "  Perltaps  you  may  say  that  in  your 
"vStrictures"  ^'^ou  have  added  the  words  "Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles" to  the  words  "afar  off."  But  they  are  not  in  your 
book  Sir,  and  I  am  oniyvaccountabie  for  the  application  of 
*13 


136 

wkat  I  have  quoted  from  your  book.-^-\Vha  is  the  misrep- 
resenter  now?  I  will  only  just  add,  that  if  you  will  look  at 
the  prophecy  of  Joel  again,  you  will  find  that  the  promise 
to  the  ''remnant*'  is  not  the  promise  of  "pouring  out  the 
Spirit''  upon  them,  but  the  promise  of  deliverance  from 
the  dreadful  judgments  that  were  awaiting  the  Jews  for 
their  not  receiving  Christ  as  tb.e  Messiah,  and.camiot  there- 
fore be  applied,  as  you  do,  to  Peter's  words  "for  the  prom- 
ise "is  to  you  and  to  your  children.". 

In  page  18,  jou  ask  me  ''what  is  the  difference  betwixt 
saying  that  the  covenant  of  eiycumeision  is  the  covenant 
confirmed  of  God  in  relation  to  Christ  and  his  church,  and 
affiiTuing  that  it  is  the  covenant  of  giace" — you  add,  that 
"my  answer  is  Immhly  looked  forj"  and  you  presume  that 
my  ^'new  grouncV^  is  no  better  than  Mr/W's  old  ground, 
nay  that  it  is  the  same  ground  cf  "uncertainty  and  con- 
jecture." % 

A.  It  would  seem  that  you  calculate  highly  on  my  an- 
swer to  this  question,  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  asked; 
and  that  there  is  some  subtle,  strong  snare  concealed  in  it, 
but  which  is  not  pervious  to  my  obtuse  understanding* 
But  I  shall  answer  it  with  the  same  promptness  and  can- 
dour with  which  I  have  answered  those  already  noticed. 
My  answer  is  this.  The  covenant  of  gi-ace  sfeeures  justi- 
fication, sanctification,  and  eternal  life  to  all  who  are  in- 
terested m\i',  but  the  covenant  of  circumcision  secured  only 
the  ordinances  of  religion  as  the  means  of  grace  to  the  cir- 
cumcised. And  as  I  have  shev/n  in  my  first  letter  that  the 
church  of  God  is  one  and  indivisible,  under  the  Patriarchal, 
Jewish,  and  Christian  dispensations  of  grace,  and  that  bap- 
tism has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  under  the  present 
dispensation,  then,  the  same  privileges  are  secured  by  that 
covenant  to  the  baptized.  That  this  ^^new  groimcP"^  as  you 
style  it,  is  not  aground  of  "uncertainty  and  conjecture," 
])ut  founded  upon,  and  agreeable  to  tne  word  of  God,  is 
apparent  from  the  following  passages.  It  will  be  admitted 
that  a  living  faith,  and  a  living  faith  only  is  what  interests 
in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  for  Christ  him- 
self who  purchased  these  blessings  has  said  "he  that  be- 
lieveth,  shall  be  saved?  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  What  now  are  the  blessings  secured  by  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  to  those  who  are  interested  in  it? 
The  apostle  answers  i]\e  question  Rom.  3:1,2,  lately  ad- 
f'uced  for  another  purpose.     ^'Wbat  advantage  hath  the 


159 

Jew?  or  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision r  Much  etery 
way:  chiefly  because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the 
oracles  of  God."     Here,  the  apostle  tells  us  in  plain  terms, 
that  the  c/iie/*  advantage  resulting  from  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision to  the  Jews  was;  that  the  oracles  of  God  were 
thereby  secured  to  them,  and  what  they  really  imported 
the  same  apostle  tells  us  specifically  in  the  9th  cliapter  4th 
and  5th  verses,  and  wliich  I  have  particularly  mentioned  in 
my  first  letter.     And  here  I  cannot  but  observe,  that  in  this 
same  page  voii  have  asserted,  v/hat  every  person  who  has 
read  that  letter  knows  to  be  untrue.     You  have  asserted 
that  I  have  represented  what  is  called  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  the  covenant  of  God  in  Christ,  as  one  and 
the  same,  "-on  my  own  mithority.'^^     You  know,  Sir,  as  I 
have  already  observed,  that  I  produced  Rom.  4:  17,  and 
-i^al.  3:  8,  17,  as  a  proof  that  this  is  the  fact. — Tliis  was 
apostolical,  and  noHmy  *'own  authority."     You  have  as- 
serted also  that  I  have  said  that  this  covenant  was  '*made 
430  years  before  the  law,  and  confirmed  only  400  years 
before  the  law."     Now,  you  and  every  other  reader  can- 
not but  know,  that  I  have  not  said  one  word  respecting  ei- 
ther the  year  it  was  made  or  confirmed.     I  have  said  that 
it  was  first  intimated  in  the  12th  chapter  of  Genesis  and 
confirmed  tMrty  years  afterwards,  and  Vv  hat  is  more  com- 
mon amongst  men,  than  for  a  covenant  to  be  made  at  one 
time,  and  confirmed  or  ratified  at  another:  and  yet  you 
make  a  loud  outcry  about  my  misrepresenting  you,  but 
upon  what  ground  the  reader  has  seen. 

And  now  Sir,  as  the  examination  of  your  strictures  on 
my  first  letter  is  closed,  (for  the  stories'of  James  Ortho- 
i^ox,  and  William  Biblicus  are  a  proof  of  nothing  but  of 
a  want  of  argument)  and  as  the  subject  of  the  means  of 
grace,  and  of  baptism  as  one  of  those  means  will  presei*^ 
itself  in  my  examination  of  your  **strictures"  on  what  is 
now  the  third  letter;  and  as  we  have  fallen  into  a  kind  of 
'•tete  a  tete,"  or  familiar  conversation,  permit  me  to  ask 
you  in  my  turn,  if  you  have  conducted  your  "strictures" 
thus  far,  either  in  style  or  manner,  as  the  laws  of  the  pub- 
lie  investigation  of  an  important  and  interesting  subject 
demand,  and  the  public  had  reason  to  expect.  My  views 
on  the  subject  of  baptism  difter  from  yours.  I  presented 
those  views  to  the  public  in  as  clear  a  manner  as  I  could, 
and  tlie  medium  through  which  they  were  first  presented 
would  admit,  accompanied  by  those  arguments  from  the 


140 

tvoid  of  Goil  which  I  tlien  thought,  and  as  I  stiii  thiiik. 
supported  those  views.  Have  you  taken  up  those  argu- 
ments one  bj  one,  and  endeavoured  to  point  out  their  weak- 
jiess  or  sophistj/f  ?  No — jou  have  not  looked  at  them  in  this 
way,  but  avskedl  what  you  supposed  were  ensnaring  ques- 
tions on  points  ivhich  I  haxl  spread  broadly  before  you,  and 
the  public^  but  I  trust  that  you  have  nov/  seen  that  your 
snares  are  no  stronger  than  a  spider's  web.  Have  you  me! , 
and  attempted  to  overthrow  my  argument  drawn  from  tiie 
1 1th  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  2d  chap- 
ter of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  not  only  for  the  exis- 
tence of  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation,  but  for  the 
klentity  of  that  and  the  Christian  Church.  .  This,  I  need 
not  tell  you  is  the  pivot  on  which  the  whole  controversy 
turnsi  and  since  you  have  overlooked  that  argument,  am  I 
not  warranted  in  saying,  that  I  liave  fuil^i established  that 
point?  I. objected  to  what  you  deemed  your  strong  argu- 
ment against  infiint  baptism — "that  in  positive  institutes 
we  are  not  authorized  to  reason  what  we  should  do,  but 
iuiplicitly  to  obey,"  and — "tiiat  positive  laws  imply  their 
negatives:"' — I  objected  because  it  excluded  every  woman 
however  pious  from  the  table  of  the  Lord.  Have  you  no- 
ticed my  objection  and  endeavoured  to  maintain  your  ar.- 
■gument.^  No — you  have  but  once  glanced  at  it  in  an  indi- 
rect manner  in  p.  19,  when  referring  to  household  baptism, 
but  which  I  shall  not  now  notice,  as  I  have  examined  that 
point  in  tlie  second  letter.  Am  I  w}^  also  warranted  to 
say  that  you  have  given  up  tliat  strong  irresistible  argu- 
ment as  you  once  considered  it,  and  that  it  is  descended 
into  the  tomb  of  Mr.  Bootii,  from  v/hora  you  borrowed  it, 
without  ackiwwledging  the  favour?  This  narrows  consid- 
erably the  ground  of  eontroyersy  betwixt  us;  and  it  impos- 
sible that  it  may  be  narrov/ed  still  more,  before  1  have  iin- 
l^lied  my  examination  of  your  "Strictures."  1  shall 
take  my  leave  of  you  personally  at  present,  reserving  the 
privilege  of  again  addressing  you  directly,  if  I  shall  think 
that^he  most  expeditious  way  of  bringing  the  controVvirsy 
to  an  issue. 


Wep^ 


LETTER  Yi. 

THAT  baptism  is  the  appointed  mean  for  the  induc- 
tion cf  adult  persons  into  the  church,  is  a  principle  com- 
mon to  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists;  but  there  is  a  diversity 
of  opinion  with  respect  to  the  character  of  those  who  are 
to  be  thus  inducted.^  Some  Baptists,  amongst  whom  Mr. 
C.  is  to  be  sometimes  ranked,  (for  he  is  not  uniform  on 
this  point)  contend^  that  a  living  faith  in  Christ^ is  indis- 
pensably necessary.  But  how  is  this  to  be  ascertained  by 
the  officers  of  the  church? — By  its  fruits.  .But  there  ma.y 
be,  and  often  is,  "a  form  of  godliness"  where  "the  power 
thereof-'  is  wanttngj  and  if  this  faith  was  designed  as  the 
only  terms  of  admission,  then  the  Head  of  the  church  would 
have  certainly  given  thein  some  infallible  standard  where- 
by this  might  be  ascertained  5  but  he  has  not,  and  tiierefore,. 
"a  spotless  church"  is  at  the  same  time  impracticable  and 
chimerical.  Aware  of  this,  others  tell  us  that  it  is  a  pro- 
fession  of  this  faith  that  is  oidy  required.  This  also  ex- 
cludes the  idea  of  a  spotless  church;  for  professions  of  faitli 
in  Christ  too  often  turn  out  to  be  only  mere  professions, 
both  amongst  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe,  that  I  consider  a 
profession  of  faith  in  Christ  as  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners, 
accompanied  with  a  sense  of  guilt,  and  a  respect  for,  and 
attendancfe  on  the  preached  Gospel,  &c.  as'the  appointed 
means  cf  grace,  as  entitling  an  adult  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism;  and  a  profession  of  a  hope  that  they  have  "passed 
from  death  unto  life,"  as  entitling  baptized  persons  to  the 
ordinance  of  the  Supper;  for  every  person  who  has  read  the 
New  Testament  with  care,  must  have  observed  a  marked 
distinction  with  respect  to  the  two  ordinances.  They 
cannot  but  have  observed  that  the. apostles  themselves 
baptized  persons  of  marked  depravity  on  their  acknowle- 
ging  their  guilt,  and  that  Jesus  was  the  only  Saviour  of  sin- 
ners, without  waiting  to.  see  if  this  sense  of  guilt  would 
issue  in  a  hopeful  conversion.  They  must  have  also  ob- 
served with  what  caution  the  apostle  Paul  in  the  11th 
cha'pter  of  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  else- 
where, guards  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper  against  those 
who  are  ignorant  of  its  nature  and  design,  and  have  not 


142 

experienced  that  faith  in  Christ  that  purifies  the  heart,  nor 
felt  that  love  (o  God  that  in  the  very  nature  of  things  is  ne- 
cessary for  a  worthy  participation  of  that  feast  of  love.  These- 
obvious  circumstances,  cannot  I  think,  be  satisfactorily 
accounted  for  on  any  other  principle  than  that  the  church 
was  designed,  not  only  for  uie  reception  of  Godly  persona 
tliat  they  may  become  more  godly  through  the  means  ap- 
pointed for  that  purpose,  but  as  the  usual  birth-place  of 
those  whom  God  designed  to  regenerate.  It  v/ili  be  re- 
membered that  1  have  examined  and  discussed  this  point 
pretty  fully  in  my  third  letter;  and  as  the  principle  there 
laid  down  and  advocated,  erases  the  very  foundation  of 
the  Baptist  system,  it  was  therefore  to  be  expected  that 
Mr.  C.  would  icxamine  that  principle  with  the  greatest 
minuteness.  This,  his  fiiends  and  the  public  expected 
from  him;  but  you  have  seen,  that  so  far  is  tliis  from  be- 
ing the  case,  he  has  not  noticed  the  prhicipal  arguments 
at  all;  and  those  he  has  noticed,  some  he  dismisses  in  a 
very  summary  way  by  saying  that  they  are  too  absurd  to 
be  noticed,  and  against  others  he  has  directed  a  few  point- 
less shafts  of  sometimes  insipid,  and  sometimes  unmean- 
ing ridicule.  His  objections  are  scattered  here  and  there 
from  the  25th  to  the  35th  page,  amidst  much  irrelevant 
matter;  I  shall  collect  them  however  as  well  as  I  can,  and 
try  their  weight  and  force. 

In  the  letter  referred  to  I  have  said,  that  I  consider  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism  as  appointed  means  of  conversion 
for  convinced  adults,  and  who  have  a  competent  know- 
ledge of  the  plan  of  redemption  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
In  page  25,  Mr.  C.  calls  upon  me  for  a  proof  of  this,  and 
^'fearlessly  affirms,  that  I  cannot  produce  one  instance 
from  the  v/hole  volume  of  inspiration  of  one  persori  being 
converted  by  either  circumcision  or  baptism."  This  I 
confess  is  astonishing,  as  I  have  produced  both  ''precept 
and  precedent,"  one  of  which  he  tells  us,  is  indispensably 
necessary  with  respect  to  ''positive  institutes."  I  produ- 
ced Col.  2:  11,  12,  as  a  proof  that  baptism  cam.e  in  the 
room  of  circumcision,  and  that  they  are  both  represented 
in  that  passage,  as  means  through  which  what  is  styled 
''the  circumcision  made  without  hands"  is  produced.  I 
produced  also  John  3:  5.  "Except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom*  of 
God."  I  produced  farther,  Acts  2:  38. "Be  baptize*! 
every  one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 


143 

receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghostj"  to  which  I  added  the 
woriZs  of  Ananias  to  Saul,  "xA.rise,  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  thy  sinsj"  and  at  the  same  time  i  offered  rea- 
sons why  I  considered  those  passages  as  teaching  the  doc- 
trine that  circumcision  and  baptism  were  designed  as 
means  of  regeneration  and  conversion.  Mr.  C.  has  seen 
and  read  all  this,  and  yet  he  calls  upon  me  for  proof.  If 
these  passages,  and  others  that  might  be  produced  were 
not  a  proof  of  the  position  in  his  estimation,  it  was  incum- 
bent upon  him  to  have  shewn  it,  and  that  I  either  misun- 
derstood, or  gave  them  a  false  interpretation;  and  until  he 
does  so,  I  must  consider  him  as  unable,  and  admitting  that 
the  interpretation  which  I  have  given  them  is  correct. 
With  respect  to  my  being  unable  "to  produce  one  instance 
from  ^11  the  volume  of  inspiration  of  one  person  being  con- 
verted by  either  circumcision  or  baptism,"  I  adduced  the 
three  thousand  who  \\*ere  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
the  apostle  Paul,  and  the  jailor  of  the  city  of  Philippi.  I 
did  not  mention  these  in  general  terms,  but  I  assigned  the 
reasons  why  I  think  they  establish  the  doctrine  which  I 
have  advocated  in  that  letter.  These  reasons  were  also 
spread  broadly  before  him,  why  did  he  not  shew  their  in- 
validity if  he  could?  On  this  he  is  also  as  silent  as  deaths 
from  which  I  am  also  wan-anted  to  draw  the  conclusion, 
that  he  could  not,  but  tries  to  veil  his  incompetency  under 
ihe  following  apostrophe,  which  every  reader  will  see  has 
not  the  most  distant  resemblance  nor  relation  to  the  point 
<iiscussed,  and  which  every  intelligent  reader  will  per- 
ceive, is  more  respectful  to  Mahomet  than  to  Christ. 
^*  What !  should  a  person  of  a  distempered  mind  in  some 
reverie  assert  that  the  name  Jesus  Christ  was  equivalent 
to  Mahomet y  and  denoted  the  same  person,  ought  we  to 
attempt  to  disprove  it!!" 

As  the  preceding  points  involve  in  them  the  matter  at 
issue,  I  might  here  lawfully  close  my  examination  of  his 
strictures  en  that  letter;  but  to  cut  off  every  cavil,  I  shall 
examine  some  other  objections  though  of  an  inferior  note. 
I  have  said  that  when  a  circumcised  Jew,  or  a  baptized 
(xentile  became  the  subjects  of  a  living  faith,  that  circum- 
cision became  to  the  one,  and  baptism  to  the  other,  a  seal 
of  their  interest  in  the  righteousness  of  faith,  as  circumci- 
sion was^o  Abraham  of  old:  Rom.  4:  11.  In  p.  26,  Mr. 
C.  thinks  this  "shocking,"  and  in  the  style  of  William  Cob- 
Ijet  bids  his  readers  «*mark  it  well."     Why  "shocking" — 


144 

Becanse  they  were  hot  made  the  subjects  of  this  faith  while 
tincircumcised,  or  unbaptized.  I  confess  I  cannot  see 
why  that  circumstance  should  alter  the  casej  and  it  is  by 
the  divine  appointment  alone,  that  circumcision,  or  baptism, 
or  any  other  ordinance  is  the  external  seal  of  an  interest 
in  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  apprehended  by  faith;  but  I 
can  clearly  see,  that  to  admit  that  any  are  *'born  again"  in 
the  church  of  God,  would  not  only  shock,  but  overturn  the 
Baptist  sj'stem. 

In  p.  2?,  Mr.  G.  objects  that  I  have  said  that  some  are 
.moraHy  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  who  are  not 
regenerated;  He  does  not,  as  is  very  usual  for  him,  assign 
any  reason  for  the  objection.  It  is  perhaps  founded  on  the 
words  * 'morally  convinced,"  as  those  v/ords  are  used  by 
some  writers,  to  denote  spiritual  illumination.  ^  I  cUd  not 
use  them  in  that  sense,  and  on  reflection  I  see  that  the 
word  ''rationally"  would  have  been  better,  and  not  liable 
to  misrepresentation;  and  are  theri>  not  thousands  who  are 
rationally  convinced  of  the  truths  of  Christianity,  and  are 
yet  not  regenerated?  ' 

In  the  next  sentence  he  objects  that  it  follows  fi'om  my 
view  of  the  subject,  "that  the  unregenerate  are  comman- 
tled  by  God  to  make  use  of  certain  means  that  they  may 
be  regenerated,  or  those  destitute  of  the  Spirit,  are  to  make 
use  of  means  without  the  Spirit,  to  obtain  the  Spirit." 

Passing  by  the  absurdity  of  a  person  praying  for.  that 
which  he  already  possesses,  I  had  thought  that  the  con- 
demned doctrine  is  clearly,  and  expressly  taught  in  Eze- 
kiel  36:  25,  26,  27,  connected  with  the  37th  verse. 
Whether  the  passage  I  am  about  to  quote  has  been  accom- 
plished to  the  Jews,  or  is  yet  to  be  accomplislied;  or  wheth- 
er Mr.  C.  will  admit  that  the  very  first  words  of  this  pas- 
sage are  prophetical  of  the  mode  in  which  baptism  was  to 
be  administered  when  it  should  be  appointed,  as  I  think  is 
the  case,  alters  not  the  main  doctrine  taught  therein. — 
^'Then  will  I  spjinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean — a  clean  heart  also  will  I  give  you — and  I  will 
put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my 
statutes,  and  yo,  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them.-r 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  God;  I  will  yet  for  this  be  inquired  of 
by  the  house  of  Israel  to  do  it  for  them."  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  observe  that  we  are  taught  in  this  passage,  in 
the  clearest  language,  that  "to  obtain  the  Spirit,"  as  Mr. 
€.  expresses  it,  we  are  to  inquire  at  the  Lord  for  this  pur- 


145 

■pcjse — inquire  at  liim  in  the  way  he  has  Khuself'  appointed. 
i  have  also  thought  that  Cliiist  has  taught  the  same  doc- 
trine in  Mat.  6:  So.  '^Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God 
and  Ids  righteousness;  and  all  these  things  [temporal  bles- 
sings] shall  be  added  unto  you,"  I  have  farther  thought 
that  Peter  taught  this  doctrine  to  Simon  Magus  in  Acts  8: 
22.  *  ^Repent  therefore  of  this  thy  wickedness,  and  pray 
God,  if  perhaps  the  thought  of  thine  heart  may  be  foi'given 
thee.  *'  I  have  thought  that  the  word  "•repent"  in  this  pas- 
sage does  not  mean  evangelical  repentance;  for  the  apostle 
intimates  that  he  might  reperJ  in  the  sense  lie  uses  the 
word,  and  "pray  God,"  and  urges  him  to  do  so,  and  yet  it 
is  a  •'perAftjOs,"  if  the  thought  of  his  heart  might  be  forgiven 
him;  but  forgiveness  is  promised  to  evangelical  repentance, 
<ind  that  re^generating  grace  is  communicated  through  pray- 
er, or  any  other  mean  appointed  for  the  purpose,  depends 
entirely  on  sovereign  grace.  I  shall  pass  over  at  present 
the  doctrine  implied  in^Ir.  C's  objection,  as  we  will  meet 
with,  it  ag'ain,  in  a  more  plain,  bold,  but  not  less  danger- 
ous forni.  ". 

In  support  oftiie  piinciple  that  the  church  was  design - 
-ed  to  be  the  usual  birth-place  of  the  cliildren  of  grace,  I 
produced  Isaiah  5:  1 — 4,  and  Luke  13:  6 — 9,  where  the 
church  is  described  by  both  Jehovah  and  his  Son  under  the 
^legory  of  a  vineyard,  and  the  trees  planted  therein,  are 
represented  as  planted  that  they  might  bring  forth  fruit  in 
'^lue  season,  and  condemned  and  threatened,  because  plan- 
ted and  tended,  they  did  not  bring  forth  fruit;  to  which  I 
added  Psalm  87:  5,  where  it  is  said  of  Zion,  or  the  Ciiurch, 
*'that  this  and  that  man  was  born  in  her,"  and  Gal.  4:  26, 
where  "Jerusalem,"  or  the  Church,  is  said  to  be.  "the 
mother  of  us  all." 

And  v/hat  now  is  Mr.  C^s  answer  to  these  arguments." 
He  never  once  glances  at  the  two  last  of  these  passages, 
but  tries  to  set  aside  the  force  of  the  two  first,  by  compa- 
ring the  unregenerate  sinner  to  a  dead  plant,  in  whicii  ev- 
ery principle  of  vegetable  life  is  destroyed,  whence  he 
draws  tke  conclusion  that  as  dead  plants  though  planted 
and  dug  about  and  dunged,  cannot  by  such  means  be 
brought  to  live  again;  so  Baptists  kno^vv  that  no  means  can 
bring  a  sinner  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  to  spiritual  life; 
after  which  he  tries  to  ridicule  myself  for  visiting  the  fam- 
iiies  of  mv  congregations, whicii,  he  compares  to  "digging 
14 


146 

about, '^  and  for  catechising  the  young  which  he  compares 
to  '-'dunging,"  and  then  tells  me  more  than  once,  ''that 
he  understands  that  not  anj  of  them  have  bj  these  means 
been  brought  to  life." 

That  any  of  their  hearers  have  "passed  from  ficath  un- 
to life,"  cannot  be  known  with  absolute  certainty  by  any 
pastor  of  a  congregation.  A  strong  hope  however  may  be 
entertained  by  their  professing  godliness,  and  their  walking 
ansvv^erably  to  their  profession;  and  this  hope  w^e  liave  of  a 
considerable  number  baptized  by  us|  and  if  it  is  ridiculous 
to  visit  the  fam.ilies  of  my  congregations  for  religious  con- 
ference, and  to  catechise  the  young  persons  amongst  them, 
I  am  only  sorry  that  I  am  not  more  ridiculous  in  Mr.  C's 
eyes  than  it  seems  I  am  on  that  account.  But  to  return 
from  this  digression  to  the  point  immediately  in  hand.  Is 
Mr.  Cs  comparison  of  an  .unregenerate  sinner  to  a  dead 
tree  or  plant,  just,  and  scriptural?  There  is  no  principle 
whatever  in  a  dead  tree  that  can  be  acted  upon,  by  digging 
about  and  dunging  it;  but  this  is  not  the  case  Avith  the  un- 
regenerate sinner.  Tliough  the  powers  of  the  soul  in  the 
understanding,  will,  and  affections  are  by  sin  turned  away 
from  God  and  things  divine  as  the  supreme  good;  yet  they 
are  capable  of  being  acted  upon,  and  directed  aright  by  au 
adequate  agent.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  that  agent,*  and  in 
regenerating  the  sinner,  he  acts  upon  the  physical  powers 
of  his  soul  by  means  suited  to  his  nature  as  a  rational  cfi-ea- 
ture.  "By  the  law  (says  one  apostle)  is  the  knowledge  of 
sin;"  "Being  born  again  (says  another,)  not  of  corruptible 
seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  bi/  the  word  of  God  which  liv- 
etli  and  abideth  forever,"  and  that  baptism  is  one  of  the 
means  through  which  what  is  styled  "the  incorruptible 
seed"  is  conveyed,  I  have  already  sliewn,  and  that  the  au- 
thor of  regeneration  is  capable  of  doing  so,  v/iil  be  admitted 
by  all  who  believe  him  to  be  a  divine  person.  Indeed,  it 
requires  the  same  pov/er  to  implant  it  in  the  heart  of  an 
adult  person  whose  physical  powers  are  in  action,  as  in  the 
heart  of  an  infant;  and  we  might  say  greater,  because  in 
the  adult  there  is  a  strong  active  bias  to  sin,  and  or^position 
to  holiness;  but  still  let  it  be  recollected  that  if  any,  adultv^ 
or  infants  are  regenerated,  it  is  entirely  oi  sovereign  and 
omnipotent  grace. 

A^  Mr.  Cs  comparison  of  an  unregenerate  sinner  to  n 
dead  tree,  goes  to  excuse  the  sinner  for  his  sinfulness,  and 
which  he  does  in  the  plainest  terms  in  p.  197  of  his  book* 


147- 

and  \vhich  he  has  neither  retracted  nor  explained;  and  as 
this  consequentij  renders  the  use  of  all  means  unnecessary, 
it  is  therefore  not  surprising  to  hear  him  say  in  p.  31,  of  his 
Strictures,  ''that  to  enjoin,  the  forms-of  religion,"  "such  as 
prayer,  praise,'-  &c.  on  the  unregenerate  is  "an  error  of 
the  most  pernicious  tendency  to  true  godliness"— is  "full 
of  deadly  poison,"  and  "a  relic  of  Popery, ";j~  and  which 
constrained  liini  to  "pray  for  a  second  Lnthet-  to  lash  the 
Popery  of  false  Protestants,  and  to  expose  the  legerdeniaia 
of  interested  Priests." 

As  this,  with  the  preceding  sentence,  is  the  only  apos- 
trophe to  the  ''interested  priests"  which  1  have  observed  in 
his  Strictures,  it  may  be  excused ;  but  it  is  somewhat  strange 
to  hear  him  praying  for  a  second  Luther,  as  the  first  Lu- 
ther was  not  only  a  Pedobaptist,  and  waged  a  long  war 
witii  his  brethren  the  Anabaptists  of  Germany  in  the  IGth 
century,  but  also  in  his  writings  enjoined  it  on  sinners  to 
attend  on  the  means  of  grace,  tliat  they  might  obtain  grace. 
But  we  have  a  greater  authority  than  Luther  on  this  point. 
Besides  the  passages  already  adduced  from  the  word  of 
God,  we  add  the  fallowing.  "Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he 
inay  be  found,  call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  near:  let  the 
zvicked  forsake  his  way  and  the  unrighteous  man  liis 
thoughts,  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord  and  lie  will  have 
mercy  upon  him,  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly 
pardon:"  Isaiah  55:  6,  7.  Who  now  are  the  pereons  who 
in  these  verses  are  enjoined  to  seek  the  Lord  wiiile  he  may 
be  found,  and  to  forsake  their  evil  ways  and  unriijhteous 
thoughts?  "The  wicked  and  the  unrighteous;"  and  wlio 
are  characterized  in  a  foregoing  verse,  as  "spending  their 
money  for  that  which  is  not  bread,  and  their  labour  for  that 
which  satisfieth  not."  In  the  148tli  Psalm,  the  Psalmist- 
calls  upon  "the  kings  of  the  earth,  and  all  people;  prlnceSy 
and  all  judges  of  the  earth;  both  young  men,  and  maidens; 
old  men  and  children,"  without  specifying  dieir  character 
as  pious,  or  not  pious,  to  praise  the  Lord  because  of  the 
excellency  of  his  c'laracter.  We  are  told  in  Mat.  21:  9, 
tiiat  when  Christ  made  his  public  entry  into  Jerusalem, 
^'the  multitudes  that  went  before,  and  that  followed,  cri- 
ed, saying,  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David,  blessed  is  iie  that 
eometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord;  Hosanna  in  the  highest." 
Vv^e  are  also  told  that  when  he  entered  into  the  temple, 
thfr  children  cried,  and  said,  "Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  Da- 
vid "     And  who  v.ere  those  muiiitudes  and  ttieu-  children"^' 


148 

~™Those  Jcv.'s  wlioin  Mr.  C.  ^classes  with  tlier  Gentiles^ 
And  was  Christ  displeased  with  tlieir  Hosannas,  and  did 
he  forbid  them  as  acts^-"fall  of  deadly  poisonj"" and  *-perni- 
cious  to  the  interests  of  true  godliness?'^  No — the  chief 
priests  v/ere  displeased,  but  Jesus  said,  "have  ye  never 
read,  out  of  the  mcuths  of  babes  thou  hast  perfected  praise." 
The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  foregoing  circum- 
stances and  fact-s  is,  I  think,  this; — that  it  is  not  a  thing 
*'fuil  of  deadly  poison"  and  "pernicious  to  the  interests  of 
true  godliHess,°'^for  sinners  to  praise  God  with  all  the  sol- 
iemnitj  they  are  capable  of,  for  sending  a  Redeemer  into 
the  world,  and  to  ]jray  for  an  interest  in  the  redeaiptiiva 
purchased  by  his  blood;  and  to  tell  them  they  are  not  to  do 
so,  is  in  my  opinion  rank  Antinomianism,  and  is  a  doctrine 
*'full  of  deadly  poison,-'  and  pernicious  to  the  souls  of  men. 
That  none  can  be  interested  m  the  "great  salvation"  v/ith- 
out  faith  is  certain,*  but  this  "faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and 
hearing  by  the  ^^ovd  of  God;"  from  wliicli  i  draw  another 
conclusion,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  attend  upon  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  and  other  appointed  means,  and  that 
this  should  be  eiiJ4>kied  upon  them  by  parents  and  minis- 
ters. Hov/  Mr.  G.  acts  in  this  respect  I  do  not  knov/.j 
but  consistently  with  his  principles,  he  should  teii  sinners 
that  it  is  an  act  ''full  of  deadly  poison,'"  to  read  the  word, 
or  hear  it  preached,  or  to  pray  with  the  publican  of  old,. 
"God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner." 

.  .  The  matter  of  an  act  may  be  good,;  or  such  as  the  divine 
law  requires,  while  the  principle  that  can  render  it  truly 
acceptable  to  the  lawgiver  is  wanting.  But  are  we  not  to 
do  that  act,  nor  perform  the  required  duty  until  we  are 
sure  that  v.e  are  possessed  of  the  proper  principle;  and  is 
that  the  way  in  which  we  are  to  expect  that  principle.^  No 
— It  is  our  duty  to  abstain  from  all  manner  of  e%'il,.  and  to 
be  conformed  to  tlie  requisitions  of  the  law  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, looking  at  the  same  time  to  God  through  Christ  for 
the  renewing  influences  of  his  Spirit,  that  we  may  do  all  his 
vv^ili  with  cheerfulness  and  delight.  As  well  might  Mr. 
C.  say,  that  the  husbandman  should  not  plough  nor  sow, 
that  he  may  procure  bread  for  himself  and  family,  because 
God  can  create  and  rain  down  manna  from  heaven,  as  he 
did  to  the  Israelites  in  tlie  wil.dcrness;  as  that  a  sinner  v/ho 
has  access  to  the  means  of  grace  should  not  attend  on  those 
means,  that  he  may  become  gracious,  until  he  believes  tha't 
that  is  his  character.     There  is  indeed  no  necessary  con- 


149 

:ffexioii  betwixt  ploughing,  and  sowing,  and  reaping;  that 
is,  it  depends  entirely  on  the  divine  blessing,  on  God's  giv- 
ing "the  former,  and  latter  rain;"  but  there  is  sach  a  con- 
nexion bj  divine  appointment  as  encourages  his  hope,  and 
stimulates  .to  industry.  So  it  is  with  the  sinner.  His 
reading,  and  hearing,  and  prajing,  do  not  deserve  the  en- 
liglitening  and  quickening  energies  ^f  the  Holj  Spirit,  nor  • 
has  God  bound  liimself  by  promise  to  answer  their  prayers, 
as  he  has  bound  himself  to  ansv/er  the  prayer  of  faith;  stiil, 
it  is  through  the  means  of  his  own  appointment  that  the 
enriching  blessing  is  to  be  expected,  and  is  usually  obtain- 
ed; for  ''of  his  own  will  begat  he  us,  with  the  word  of 
^ri^^/i,"  saith  tlie  apostle  James;  "and  the  publican  who 
would  not  lift  up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  but  smote  his  breast, 
saying,  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  "went  down  to 
his  house  justified  rather  than  the  Pharisee,"  who  in  fact 
did  not,  or  would  not  pray  at  all. 

But  as  Mr.  C.  in  this  page  makes  a  severe  attack  on  Con- 
stantine  the  first  Christian  Emperor  of  Rome,  for  enjoining 
on  his  army  a  form  of  prayer  at  stated  ti  mes,  he  may  say  that 
it  is  praying,  praising,  and  attending  on  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  when  enjoined  by  civil  authority  that  he  condemns. 
We  areas  much  opposed  to  such  injunctions  as  he  is:  but  if 
that  was  his  meaning,  what  relevancy  or  bearing  has  it  on  the 
subject  v/e  are  investiga.ting,  as  the  magistracy  of  our  country 
have  no  such  pov^'^er,  and  we  hope  they  never  shall,  as  such 
things  have  been  found  rather  injurious,  than  advantageous 
to  the  Christian  religion;  and  we  w^ould  have  thought  that 
that  was  his  meaning  had  he  not  charged  it  upon  me  as  an 
error,  that  I  have  sa.id,  '-that  God  has  commanded  the  un- 
regenerate  to  make  use  of  certain  means  tliat  they  may  be 
regenerated."  But  you  may  be  ready  to  ask,  vArxt  indu- 
ces him  to  cry  down  the  use  of  means  in  the  strong  manner 
he  has  done?  It  is  the  legitimate  offspring  of  his  system, 
for  to  admit  that  sinners  are  regenerated  througli  the  use 
of  means,  is  a  strong  argument  why  they  should  be  intro- 
duced into  the  church,  which  I  have  shewn  is  the  ustial 
birth-place  of  the  children  of  grace,  and  this  he  saw  erased 
the  very  foundation  of  the  Baptist  system. 

As  a  proof  that  the  visible  church  was  designed  to  em- 
brace not  only  those  who  are  born  again,  but  otiiers  that 
tiiey  may  be  regeneratsdHhere;  I  produced  in  my  fot  let- 
ter Mat.  13:  4r,,  where,,  the  church  under  the  appellation 


150 

cf  "the  kingdom  of  VieaVen,''  is  ccrripared  to  a  '-net  cii^Jt 
iiV(.-  nt  beii,  \^iiich  gathered  of  eveij  kinci,"  ^^''good  and 
Utr.^^  I  produced  aiso  Mat.  £8:  1,  2,  Vvhere  the  same 
IviiiCtiom  of  heaven, 'jr  the  church,  is  compared  "-to  ten 
vii^ms,  five  of  which  were  wise,  and  live  foolish."  Mr. 
C .  i  as  not  coutiovertfcd,  but  hy  his  silence  admitted,  that 
tie  af  plication  of  those  passages  to  the  church  is  just  and 
collect,  l^cr  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  true  mean- 
ing cf  the  Greek  words  ^-hiigiois  and  /legiasamenois^'^ 
liunsiated  ^'-icinis,'^  and  cften  applied  to  the  members  of 
the  churcl.,  m  the  New  Testament,  1  produced  the  author- 
ity of  Dr.  Campbell  who  m  his  dissertations  referred  to 
more  than  once,  has  proved  by  a  number  of  examples,  that 
thwse  words  in  the  beptuagmt,  v/iien  apphed  to  human 
persons,  do  not  demjte  moral  purity,  but  onty  that  they 
were  set  apart  for  some  special  purpose — that  aithougb 
those  words  are  frequently  used  m  tiieNew  Testament  to 
denote  moral  purity,  yet,  whenever  they  are  applied  to  the 
members  of  the  Christian  churches,  they  should  be  under- 
stood as  impoiting. nothing  more,  than  that  such  persons 
\\  ere  by  baptism  ^'devoted  or  consecrated  to  the  service  of 
G.d.' 

Against  this,  Mr.  C.  produces  the  authority*  cf  Dr, 
Owen,  who  he  says  "teaches,  that  the  apostles  always  ad* 
dressed  the  churches  as  real,  not  as  projessed  saints,  for  it 
vouldhave  been  a  violation  of  Christian  charity,  to  have 
tliought  otherwise  j"  to  which  he  adds  the  authority  of  Mr* 
V,  alker  of  I'nnity  College,  Dublin,  who  in  his  letters  to 
Alexander  Knox,  Esq.  says  that  those  words  with  their 
corresp'onding  words  in  Hebrew,  ''mean  in  the  sacred  dia- 
lect, that  all  believers  in  Christ  are  perfectly  sanctified,  the 
moment  they  believe  the  Gospel." 

\\  hether  this  be  true,  or  the  reverse,  it  has  nothing  to  do 
^^ith  the  point  in  hand,  and  it  required  no  great  degree  of 
penetration  to  see  that  it  did  not.  The  point  is;  did  the 
apostle  Paul  for  instance,  mean  that  all  the  members  of 
those  churches  whom  he  addressed  under  the  appellation 
of ''saints,"  were  all  "rec/  saints,"  or  born  again  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.^  Mr.  C.  says  yes,  on  the  authority  of  Dr. 
Cwen  as  he  says,  for  he  has  not  referred  to  the  book,  nor 
page.  If  that  was  the  apostle-s  meaning,  then  he  must 
have  allowed,  and  believed  that  the  incestuous  person 
mentioned  mbishrst  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  those 
l^ uo  couiitenanced  ium  m  his  uenatuial  incest,  were  real^ 


arid  not  professed  sairits;''  even  v/nile  tliey  continued  iti- 
sensible  of  the  atrocity  of  tlie  crimej  and  he  must  have  be-^ 
iieved,  that  the  chur  Clips  of  Galatia,  ay  ho,  he  sajs  chapter 
r»d,  were  so  ''bewitched^''^.  as  to  renounce  the  doctrine  of 
f.aivation  hj  grace,  and  to  look  iov  salvation  by  the  works 
of  the  law,  were  '''real  saints"  also.     And  it  is  worthy  of 
particular  notice,  that  although  the  apostle  addresses  the 
Corintbia.iis  as  ^'saints:"  j^i  in  his  epistle  to  tke  Epheai- 
ans  and.Colossians,  Jic  adds  to  the  Vord  « 'saints,*' and 
^ifaithfid,^-  or  hclieving  ^^br&tlirmf^  which  is  a  proof  that 
lie  did  not  believe  all  the  members  of  those  churches  to  be 
^'Tcal  saints^"  for  if  he  did,  tlien,  tlie  distinction  was  a 
mere  tautoiogy,  and  altogether  superfluous.   *  But  this  is 
not  all.     In  Isis  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  he  on-iits  even  the 
word  "saints,"  and  simply  says— '^To  the.churches  of  Gal- 
atia."     And  why   this  more   r-iarked  distinction  again? 
Doubtless,  from  this  cause:  that  although  he  had  reason  to 
fear  that  there  were  few  true  believers  in  the  church  at  Co- 
rinth at  the  time  he  v/rote  his  first  epistle  to  them,*  yet  he 
bad  reason  to  fear  for  the  reasons  assigned,  that  there  were 
still  fewer  in  the  churches  .of  Galatia^  notvvithslanding 
which  headdresses  them  both  as  churches,  and  churclies 
loo  of  J^sus  Christ.     It  is  true  that  he  omits  the  v^ord 
*'saints"  in  his  epistles  to  the  churches  of  the  Thessaloni- 
ans,  but  he  speaks  of  them  in  the  very  beginning  of  both 
epistles,  as  that  he  had  reason  to  believe  that  tiiey  were 
generally  '-'■real  saints,"  which  is  not  the  case  inhis'epistle 
TO  the  clmrcheB  of  Galatia.     Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  that 
the  apostle  did  not  know  their  hearts,  and  might  be  mista* 
ken,  as  there  is  often  grace  in  the  heart,  wiiere  there  is 
much  defection  in  faith  and  in  practice.     Well— it  will 
be  admitted  that  Crist  knows  the  true  state  of  all  church- 
es, and  the  hearts  of  all  the  members.     Through  his  ser- 
vant John  he  wrote  and  directed  a  particular  epistle  to  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia.     And  what  is  the  character  w hich 
this  Searcher  of  hearts  gives  us  of  some  of  those  churches.^ 
\V ith  the  exception  of  ^-a  few  names,"  the  church  of  Sar- 
dis  "had  a  name  to  live  while  yet  they  were  dead."     The 
state  of  the  church  of  Laodicea  was  still  more  deplorable. 
They-  said  that  they  were  "rich,  arid  increased  in  goods, 
and  liad  need  of  nothing,"  while  he  tells  them  that  they 
were  "wretched,  and  poor,  and  miserable,  and  blind  and 
naked 5"  and  yet  he  addresses  and  styles  them  as  ciuirches 
as  well  as  those  whom  he  commends— auo die r  proof  that 


15:2 

tlie  cliurcli  was  designed  to  embrace  others  besides  thosar 
who  were  "rea/ saints." 

It  would  seem  that  Mr.  C.  was  sensible  that  the  author- 
ities he  has  produced,  were  inadequate  to  set  aside  the  ju- 
dicious criticism  of  Dr.  Campbell:  and  therefore  he  adds 
one  of  his  own.  which  he  tells  us  settles,  tlie  point.  It  is 
il lis— that  the  phraseology  "m  Christ,'^  denotes  a  vital 
union  to  hjm^but  the  apostle  addresses  the  Corinthians  as 
^^hegiasamcaois  en  Chrvjto,''^  or  '•'sandijiedln  Christ,^^  mid 
i]\Q  Phiiippians  as  ^^hagiois  en  Christo,'*^  "or  '^saints  in 
Christ:' 

Without  referring  again  to  the  character  which  the  apos- 
tle himself  gives  of  the  church  of  Corinth  in  his  first  epis- 
tle, I  v/ouid  reply;  that  it  is  admitted  that  the  words  "in 
Christ,"  mean  a  vital  union  to  him,  bat  not  always.  One 
text  to  the  point  is  equal  to  tv/enty,  or  an  hundred.  In 
John  15:  1,  2,  Christ  styles  himself  "the  true  vine,  and  his 
Father  the  husbandman;"  and  then  adds,  "every  branch 
in  me  4;hat  beareth  not  fruit  he  taketh  arway;  and  every 
branch  that  beareth  fruit,  he  purgeth,  that  it  may  bring 
fortli  more  fruit. "  Here,  tli.e  unfruitful  branch  is  express- 
ly said  to  be  "in  Christ,*'  as  v/ell  as  i^W?.  fruitful  branch | 
and  the  question  now  is.  hov/  was  it  "in  Christ,"  or  united 
to  him.  .The  apostle  Paul  answers  the  question;  "as  many 
of  you  as  have  "been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ" — "and  as  many  as  have  been  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  have  been  baptized  into  his  death" — that  is,  they 
are  thereby  brought  under  obligations  to  live  to  his  glory, 
and  to  look  for  salvation  by  the  merit  of  his  "obedience 
unto  death."  This  must  be  his  meaning;  for  Mr.  C.  him- 
self vvdll  not  contend  that  all  who  have  been  baptized  even 
by  immersion  were  true  believers;  nor  will  he  say  that 
baptism  forms  a  vital  union  between  the  baptized  unbeliev- 
er, and  Christ. 

From  these  observation?  I  tliink  it  will  be  admitted  that 
the  opinion  of  Dr.  Campbell,  that  when  the  apostles  addres- 
sed the  Christian  churches  ihej  liad  not  allusion  exclusive- 
ly to  their  moral  purity,  but  to  the  circumstance  of  their 
being  "devoted,  or  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God  by 
their  baptism,"  is  correct^  and  that  they  are  styled  "saiiits," 
or  holy,  in  the  sense  that  t!ie  Jewish  nation  are  styled  so, 
because  they  were  consecrated  or  set  apart  to  the  service 
of  the  God  of  Israel  by  the  ordinance  of  circumcision. 
From  the  whole  this  appears  to  me  to  be  the  true  state  of 


(he  case.  The  \isible  church  was  erected,  is,  and  wiii 
be  preserved  in  the  world  to  the  end  of  time,  as  the  place 
where  those  whom  God  designed  to  save  through  Christ  are 
usually  *^*born  again,''  or  "born  of  God."  Those  who  are 
thus  born  again  are  styled  in  the  Scriptures  ^'the  children 
of  God*'  and  * 'branches  in  Christ  that  bear  fruit,"  with 
other  appropriate  appellatives.  But  as  these  cannot  be 
distinguished  with  absolute  certainty  by  men  from  tliose 
who  ha.ve  "the  form  of  godliness,  but  arc  destitute  of  the 
power  thereof^"  both,  for  the  reasons  assigned  are  addres- 
sed by  the  apostles  by  the  general  appellation  of  "saints," 
— of  "the  church,"— and  ''the  church  of  God"  "which 
he  hath  bought  with  his  own  blood,"  because  it  cost  Christ 
who  is  God,  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  to  prepare  the  way 
whereby  even  this  medium  of  redemption  might  be  erected 
in  this  our  world,  and  especi?Jly  whereby  jus tiii cation  and 
cternM  life  might  be  conferred  on  those  who  truly  believe 
in  his  name. 

Having  now  finished  the  examination  of  the  strictures 
on  my  third  letter,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  a  little  direct 
conversation  with  Mr.  C.  himself.  And  now  Sir,  yourself 
being  jvfdge,  has  not  what  you  call  my  "new  ground,"  and 
*'new  discovery, "produced  confusion  in  the  Baptist  camp, 
and  disanned  you  of  your  former  boasted  artillery?  Is  not 
your  having  recourse  to  a  pithless  and  toothless  irony,  and 
a  bombastical,  and  sometimes  unintelligible  apostrophising^ 
instead  of  argument  against  this  new  ground,  a  proof  that 
this  is  the  case|  and  v/ereyounot  aware,  that  every  intel- 
ligent reader  v/ould  consider  it  in  that  point  of  light.f^  If 
this  "new  ground,"  and  "new  discovery"  is  as  absurd  as 
you  say  it  is,  the  refutation  of  it  by  argument  would  have 
been  the  easier,  and  your  former  artillery  would  not  have 
been,  as  it  is  now,  useless;  but  if  it  is  scriptural,  asT  be- 
lieve it  is,  then,  you  cannot  but  see,  that  one  day  (tousO: 
one  of  your  own  expressions)  it  will  "tumble  your  system 
to  the  ground."  At  any  rate,  is  not  the  ground  of  con- 
troversy narrowed  still  more  by  this  new  discovery  as  you 
style  it .^  In  proof  of  the  position  assumed  in.  the  beginning 
of  that  letter,  that  baptism  was  designed  as  a  mean  of  ad- 
mission into  the  church,  for  awakened  inquiring  and  pray- 
ing adults  who  had  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  funda-^ 
mental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  for  the  admis- 
sion of  true  believers;  I  examined  all  the  baptisms  that  are 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament  with  any  degree  of  detail^, 


154 

and  shewed,  or  endeavoured  to  shew,  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  a  profession  of  a  living  fiiith,  and  evangelical 
repentance  was  required  of  tlie  persons  baptized,  and  who 
appear  to  have  been  unrep;enerace.  This  was  not  wonder- 
ing! nor  apostrophising!  nor  dealing  in  general  and  in- 
definite terms,  as  you  have  done  in  your  reply,  but  coming 
to  the  point  at  once;  and  in  this  wa}',  and  this  alone  can 
any  disputed  point  be  satisfactorily  settled.  Did  you  ex- 
amine those  cases  also,  and  endeavour  to  point  out  the  in- 
conclusiveness  of  my  arguments?  No  vSir — ^you  have  cau- 
tiously aTioided  them,  and  referred  to  one  or  tv/o  of  them 
only  in  general  and  indistinct  terms.  Am  I  not  warran- 
ted then  to  conclude  that  you  could  not  overturn  those  ar- 
guments; for  if  you  could,  your  zeal. for  the  system  yoiHK 
have  adopted,  and  your  own  character  as  a  disputer  and 
•writer  imperiously  demanded  this  from  you.  I  would  al- 
so ask  you,  if  that  obloquy,  and  I  must  add  that  blasphemy 
at  least  in  terms,  which  the  dt  fence  of  your  system  com- 
pelled you  to  pour  on  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  the  Jew- 
ish theology  and  ordinances  which  Christ  himself  attended 
upon,  is  not  an  evidence  that  there  is  something  "rotten" 
— I  inust  repeat  it, — "^rotten  to  the  very  core"  in  t^iat  sys  • 
tern  that  requires  such  a  defence.'*  I  v/ould  hope  that  you 
■would  not  deliberately  blaspheme  the  character,  and  doings 
of  the  Most  High  God,  and  that  what  you  have  writt^n^ 
was  written  under  the  deleterious  influence  of  an  unscrip- 
tural  system,  and  the  desperate  defLMice  of  a  cause  v/hich 
you  felt  was  sinking  under  your  feet;  and  that  you  will  ob- 
tain pardon  through  that  blood  that  was  typitied  by  those 
very  sacrifices  which  you  so  much  undervalue  and  despise. 
I  would  farther  ask  you;  is  n')t  your  doctrine  respecting 
the  means  of  grace,  calculated  to  hardeti  the  sinner  in  hi& 
sinfulness,  and  to  tell  him  that  he  is  notblameable,  although 
he  aiay  neglect  all  the  means  appointed  for  his  illuminatioa 
and  conversion.'*  Hov/  contrary  it  is  to  the  tenor  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  I  think  I  have  clearly  shewn. 
You  were  also  led  to  this  by  your  system:  Should  it  not 
induce  you  to  examine  it  more  carefully  than  you  have 
hitherto  done?  You  appear  to  bj?,  ignorant  of  the  obvious 
distinction  between  the  natural  and  moral  ability  and  ina- 
bility of  man.  Was  I  to  direct  you  for  information  on  that 
sul)ject,  to  any  Pedobaptist  writer,  I  suppose  you  would 
spurn  at  the  idea  of  bein<2;  instructed  by  the  *^interested 
priests.*^     Vveli,  i  will  take  the  liberty  of  directing  you 


155 

to  a  Baptist  writer — the  modest  and  acute  Fuller,  or  to  his 
book  entitled  "The  Gospel  worthy  of  all  acceptation." 
But  I  will  direct  you  to  a  grea,ter — to  Christ,  who  com- 
plains of  sinners  thus,  '■'and  ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that 
you  naight  have  life;"  the  ground  of  which  blame  he  ex- . 
presses  in  these  words,  "they  have  eyes  but  they  see  not, 
and  ears  but  they  hear  not,  and  understandings  but  they 
perceive  not. "  And  \  v/ouid  here  finally  ask  you;  are  not 
the  stories  which  you  have  published  in  your  strictures  res- 
pecting some  Pedobaptist  preachers  in  the  State  ©f  Ohio 
truly  ridiculous,  unworthy  of  the  press,  and  degrading  to 
any  man  who  publishes  such  miserable  stutF?  Admitting 
them  to  be  true,  they  are  no  argument  for  the  Baptist,  nor 
.^et  against  the  Pedobaptist  system.  But  I  am  persuaded 
^that  was  it  worth  while  to  inquire  after  them  they  would 
be  found  to  be  false — as  false  as  what  you  have  asserted  iji 
p.  SO,  that  not  one  of  those  I  have  baptized  have  given  any 
evidence  of  "'haviiig  passed  from  death  unto  life."  My 
ovvn  hearers  would  not,  could  not  say  so;  nor  cafi  I  think 
that  any  individual  of  the  Baptist  churcli  who  are  amongst 
us  and  around  us  would  tell  you  what  hundreds  know  not 
to  be  true;  and  if  true,  what  had  it  to  do  with  the  question 
under  consideration?  If  your  system  cannot  be  supported 
but  by  such  means,  it  is  time  "to  cast  it  to  the  moles,  and 
to  theb'ats.-'  I  may  pcrha^ps  avail  myself  of  the  opportu 
nity  of  addressing  you  again. 


LETTER  VII. 

AS  Mr.  C,  affirms  *Hhat  immersion  is  the  onli/  bap-' 
lism,"  and  as  I  have  called  in  question  in  my  fourtli  letter 
the  truth  of  this  position,  which  involves  in  it  the  sweep- 
ing consequence  of  unchurching  all  the  churches  in  the 
world,- the  Baptist  church  excepted;  it  was  therefore  to  be 
expected  that  he  would  put  forth  all  his  strength,  and  sup- 
port this  position  bv  arguments  strong  and  clear.  The 
substance  of  all  he  has  said  on  this  point,  so  very  interes- 
ting in  itself,  may  be  reduced  to  the  following  items,  as 
you  may  see  by  reading  from  the  36th  to  the  43d  page  of' 
his  strictures — That  his  friends  and  followers  *'can  per- 
fectly decide  from  the  Nev/  Testament,  that  the  Eunuch 
was  baptized  by  immersion,  because  it  is  said  tliat  *''He  and 
Philip  went  both  down  into  the  water,  and  came  up  out  of 
the  ivater^'' — that  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  nothing 
else,  for  if  it  does  not.  tiien  the  inspired  w'riters  "have 
used  ambiguous  or  equivocal  words  that  have  no  decided 
meaning;"  whereas  Paul  says,  "w«  use  great  plainness  of 
speeclr' — that  I  have  not  produced,  nor  cannot  produce 
any  instance  from  "authors  sacred  or  profane"  where  the 
word  is  used  "to  signify  to  pour  or  sprinkle;*'  after  which 
he  closes  the  whole  with  a  detailed  list  of  Pedobaptist  and 
Baptist  vvriters  who  use  the  word  to  signify  to  immerse, 
whence  he  concludes  *'that  1  am  condemncdyhy  ihy  own 
haders  and  friends,  and  his  opponents  themselves  being 
judges."  p.  43. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  more  respecting  the 
baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  than  I  have  said  in  the  fourth  let- 
ter. If  the  words  ''they  went  down  both  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch"  signify  immersion,  as  Mr.  C. 
says  they  do,  and  as  he  tells  us  Baptists  understand  these 
words,,  then,  as  I  have  already  remarked  in  that  letter, 
Philip  must  have  been  immersed  as  well  as  the  Eunuch — 
the  baptizer,'  as  well  as  the  baptized.  Instead  of  appeal- 
ing to  iS\^  prejudices  and  prepossessions  of  his  friends,  Mr. 
C.  should  have  shewn  if  he  could,  that  such  a  consequence 
does  not  follow  from  those  words,  as  he  and  they  under- 
stand tliem. 

Witli  respect  to  the  affirmation  tliat  baptizo  must  signi- 


157 

fy  "to  immerse*'  and  nothing  else,  otherwise  tlie  apostle 
could  not  say  that  he  used  "great  plainness  of  speech,"  it 
is  truly  silly;  and  is  a  proof,  either  that  he  is  embarked  m 
an  indefensible  cause,  or  that  he  is  unacquainted  with  the 
language  of  the  sacred  Oracles.  I  have  had  occasion  to  ob- 
serve more  than  once,  what  every  intelligent  and  reflecting 
reader  must  liave  observed;  that  from  the  poverty  of  words 
in  every  language,  and  in  the  Greek  language  copious  as 
it  is,  the  same  word  is  used  in  different  acceptations,  and 
sometimes  in  meanings  diametrically  opposite  to  each  oth- 
er. I  have  shewn  in  the  foregoing  letters  that  the  Greek 
words  translated  faith^  repentance,  sancfificafion  and  sal- 
vation are  used  in  the  sacred  Oracles  in  different  mean- 
ings, or  that  in  some  places,  they  are  used  in  a  more,  or 
less  extended  sense  than  in  others;  and  Mr.  C.  might  as 
well  say,  that  the  inspired  penmen  did  not  use  *'great 
plainness  of  speech"  when  they  used  those  words,  as  when 
they  used  the  words  hapiizma  and  haptizo.  The  fact  and 
truth  is,  that  the  v/riters  of  the  New  Testament  used  these 
words  in  the  sense  in  which  they  had  been  used  in  the 
Septuagint,  whence  they  are  borrowed,  leaving  it  to  the 
reader,  as  every  writer  must  do,  to  determine  from  the 
nature  of  the  subject  they  discussed,  and  from  other  cir- 
cumstances in  which  of  all  the  received  meanings,  they 
were  to  understand  the  words  they  used. 

But  Mr.  C.  tells  me  p.  39,  that  I  have  not  produced, 
and  cannot  produce  an  instance  from  either  "the  New  Tes- 
tament," nor  yet  from  "classical  writers,"  where  the  words 
bapto  and  bcfptizo  are  used  to  signify  "to  pour,  or  sprinkle." 

Every  person  vv^ho  has  read  the  fourth  letter  must  be  aa- 
tonished  at  the  first  of  these  assertions,  and  which  I  will 
notice  in  the  proper  place.  Classical  authority  I  did  not 
produce,  as  I  then  thought,  and  still  think,  "tliat  if  a  doc- 
trine is  to  be  ascertained  by  the  meaning  of  the  vv'ord  that 
conveys  it,  it  must  be  by  the  meaning  which  the  inspired 
penmen  attach  to  it,  and  not  that  of  heathen  writers." 
However,  as  Mr.  C.  demands  it,  and  as  it  may  possibly 
be  the  means  of  rescuing  him  from  his  present  error;  antl 
at  any  rate  must  silence  him  on  this  point,  I  will  give  him 
classical  authority.  I  expect  that  he  will  admit,  that  Ho- 
mer is  good  classical  authority,  and  in  the  poem  of  the 
battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice,  he  says  of  one  of  the  wounded 
frogs,  '^ebapteto  de  aimati  limne pSrphureo^^ — *''the  lake  was 
15 


15S 

hesprinkkd,  or  besmeared  with  his  purple  blood.  '*  Wheth- 
er Homer  v/as  the  author  of  that  poem,  or  not,  is  a  matter 
of  no  consequence  in  the  present  inquiry.  It  is  admitted 
to  be  very  ancient,  and  in  the  above  quotation  bapto  the 
very  root  of  bapiizo^  must  mean  to  sprinkle,  or  besmearj 
for  Mr.  C.  daring  as  he  is  in  his  positions  and  assumptions, 
will  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  lake  was  immersed  in  the 
blood  of  a  frog.  Mr.  Sydenham  quotes  an  oracle  as  giving 
the  following  directions.  ''■Asko  baptize;  dunai  de  toi  on 
ihemis  estP'' — '-Baptize  him  as  a  bottle,  but  it  is  not  lawful 
to  immerse,  or  plunge  him  wlioUy  in  water."  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  obsen'e  that  baptize  in  this  passage  is  used  in 
opposition  to  immerse  or  plunge^  and  therefore  cannot 
mean,  the  same  thing.  Other  instances  of  bapto  and  bap- 
tizo  being  used  by  very  ancient  Greek  writers,  to  signify 
to  sprinkle  or  besmear^  are  in  readiness  should  Mr.  C.  ever 
call  for  them  in  a  proper  manner.  Those  I  have  now  pro- 
duced, with  others  of  a  similar  import,  have  been  frequent- 
ly produced  by  Pedobaptist  writers,  and  should  have  set- 
tled the  question  with  respect  to  classical  authority,  and 
prevented  the  bold  and  confident  assertion  that  no  such  aur 
thority  can  be  produced. 

But  to  return  to  Mr.  C's  extraordinary  assertion  that  I 
have  not  produced  one  instance  from  the  New  Testament, 
where  '^baptizo^^  is  used  to  signify  "to  pour,  or  sprinkle," 
Has  he  forgotten  that  I  have  examined  all  the  baptisms  in 
the  New  Testament  that  are  recorded  with  any  degree  of 
detail,  and  that  the  result  of  that  examination  was;  that  in 
every  instance,  the  circumstances  connected  with  them, 
combine  in  declaring,  that  the  ordinance  must  have  been 
administered  by  affusion,  and  not  by  immersion.     This 
brought  the  controversy  at  once,  '-to  the  law,  and  to  the 
testimony;"  and  where  I  am  persuaded,  it  must,  and  will 
be  brought  when  it  is  finally  settled.     Has  Mr.  C.  exami- 
ned  those  passages  also,  and  endeavoured  to  shew  that  my 
conclusions  were  deduced  from  false  premises;  and  that  all 
those  baptisms  must  have  been  administered  by  immersion? 
His  own   character  as  a  writer,  tlie   expectation  of  his 
friends,  and  the  defence  of  his  system  imperiously  deman- 
ded this  also  from  bim;but  I  need  not  tell  you,  that  he  has 
not  even  glanced  at  one  of  them,  the  baptism  of  the  Eu- 
nuch excepted,  and  what  a  poor  and  feeble  reply  he  has 
made  to  my  observations  on  that  interesting  baptism,  you, 
^nd  other  readers  have  seen. 


159 

I  might  reasonably  rest  the  question  here,  until  Mr.  C 
shall  shew,  that  the  conclusions  I  liave  drawn  from  those 
baptisms  are  incorrect.  But  I  will  do  more.  I  will  now 
prci^enthim  with  a  few  more  passages  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, wherein  baptisma  must  necessarily  mean  "a  pour- 
ing out,"'  or  *»sprinkling,"  and  hapiizo  "to  pour  out,"  or 
-sprinkle. "  _  The  first  wiiich  I  shall  adduce  is  Heb.  9 :  10, 
already  considered  for  another  purpose.  "Which  stood 
only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  ivashmgs  (baptismom) 
iind  carnal  ordinances  hnposed  on  them  until  the  time  of 
reformation. "  Here,  the  washings  or  baptisms  prescribed 
by  the  Levitical  ritual  are  referred  toj  and  it  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  observe,  that  although  some  of  these  washings 
required  the  immersion  of  tlie  whole  body,  yet  others  of 
them  prescribed  only  the  spnnhUng  of  water  on  the  per- 
sons to  be  washed,  whether  priests  or  people.  And  it  is 
worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  in  the  13th  verse  the  apos- 
tle expressly  mentions  the  mode  of  washing  by  sprinklings 
as  one  of  those  divers  washings  or  baptisms.  '*For  if  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer 
sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ  (v/hich  is 
elsewhere  styled  "the  blood  of  spj'inJding,^^)  who  through 
the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God, 
purg;eyour  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living- 
God." 

In  1  Cor.  10:  2,  it  is  said  of  the  Israelites,  "that  they 
v/ere  all  baptized  febaptizcmto)  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud, 
and  in  the  sea."  Whatever  the  baptism  unto  Moses  meant^ 
here  v/as  a  baptism  however,  without  immersion.  There 
was  indeed  immersion  on  the  occasion,  but  it  was  of  the 
Egyptians,  for  we  are  told  that  the  children  of  Israel 
'* walked  on  drf/  land  in  tlie  midst  of  tlie  sea,  and  the  wat- 
ers v/ere  as  a  Vv^all  unto  them,  on  their  light  hand,  and  on 
their  left;"  their  baptism  tlien,  must  have  been  by  the 
sprinkling  of  Avater  upon  them  from  the  cloud,  or  from  the 
spray  of  the  sea.  I  have  indeed  heard  it  alleged  that  this 
was  a  baptism  by  immersion,  as  the  cloud  was  above  them 
and  the  waters  of  the  sea  on  each  side.  But  this  like  many 
other  fanciful  theories  and  interpretations,  has  a  very  ma- 
terial defect.  Immersion  signifies  a  being  literally  over- 
whelmed in,  and  wetted  with  water,  but  the  Israelites 
walked  vn  dry  landj  nor  is  it  said  that  they  were  unmerstd 
in  the  cloud,  nor  could  it  be  so,  as  the  cloud  was  above 


160 

them.  1  will  only  add,  that  whatever  i}i?d  baptism  meant;, 
or  was  intended  to  prefigure,  the  little  children  and  infants 
were  baptized  as  well  as  the  men  andVomen. 

There  is  another  passage,  1  Peter  3:  21,  already  addu- 
ced, in  wliich  baptism,  and  Christian  baptism  too,  is  men- 
tioned, but  which  cannot  mean  the  application  of  water  by 
immersion,  but  by  some  other  mode.  '-Ei^ht  souls  (says 
the  apostle)  were  saved  by  tvater.^^  "The  like  figure 
whereunto  even  baptism,  (bapiisrna)  doth  also  now  save 
us."  In  this  passage  the  apostle  evidently  drav/s  the 
comparison,  betwixt  the  temporal  salvation  of  Noah  and 
his  family  hy  water  in  the  ark  (probably  a  type  of  the 
church)  and  baptismal  water,  as  a  mean  of  spiritual  salva- 
tion. Now,  hov/  were  Noah  and  his  family  saved  by  ivat- 
er.  Was  it  by  being  immersed  in  it?  No — that  was  tlie 
case  with  the  antediluvians  who  despised  the  church  of  God 
in  the  family  of  Noah;  but  by  being  borne  up  by  it;  and 
during  the  time  they  were  in  the  ark  they  were  doubtles.^ 
sprinkled  like  the  Israelites  in  the  Red  8ea,  by  the  spray 
of  the  mighty  ocean  tumbling  and  breaking  around  them. 
This,  as  it  respects  the  mode  of  applying  v/ater  in  baptism, 
must  be  the  apostle's  point  of  comparison,  and  to  apply  it 
to  immersion  is  contrary  to  truth,  and  to  fact;  or  to  under- 
stand the  word  baptism  in  this  passage  as  meaning  immer- 
sion destroys  the  comparison  altogether;  for  it  was  the  an- 
tediluvians'who  were  immersed,  as  were  the  Egyptians  in 
the  Red  Sea. 

I  shall  mention  another  passage,  Luke  12:  50,  wherein 
baptism  is  mentioned,  but  where  there  can  be  no  allusion 
to  immersion.  '^1  have  a  baptism  (baptisma)  to  be  bapti- 
zed with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be  accomplish- 
ed." By  the  baptism  in  this  place,  some  commentators 
understand  the  tears  and  blood  which  Christ  shed  during 
the  time  of  his  scourging  and  crucifixion;  and  others  those 
vials  of  divine  wrath  that  were  poured  out  upon  him  when 
suffering  for  guilty  men.  But  understand  this  baptism  as 
having  reference  to  either  of  these  circ^rmstances,  or  to 
both,  the  most  fruitful  imagination  cannot  conceiveof  any 
thing  like  immersion;  for  Christ  was  not,  could  not,  be  im- 
mersed in  his  own  tears  and  blood,  and  was  only  sprink- 
led or  besmeared  by  them;  and  the  vials  of  divine  v.rath 
are  represented  in  the  Scriptures,  as  being  "poured  out,*' 
bui  no  where  is  it  said,  that  any  were  immersed  in  those: 
vials.     See  Jeremiali  10:  25.  Revelations  16:  1. 


161 

i  shall  only  adduce  another  passage*  1  Cor.  12:  IS,  in 
which  the  word  "baptized-'  cannot  mean  "immersed,",, 
but  the  allusioft  must  be  to  pouring  out,  or  sprinkling. 
"For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  (ebaptisthemen)  in- 
to one  Body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  or  whether 
we  be  bond  or  free;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into 
one  Spirit. "    That  by  the  "one  body"  in  this  passage,  the 
apostle  meant  true  believei*s  who  are  elsewhere  styled  "the 
body  of  Christ;"  and  that  by  the  "one  Spirit"  he  meant  the 
Holy  Spirit,  will  not  I  think  be  controverted.     But  he 
says,  that  true  believers  are  all  baptized  into  this  "One 
Body,"  by  this  "One  Spirit."     How? — By  his  regenera- 
ting influences— "unless  a  rnan  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the 
Spirit^  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. "     And 
how  are  believers  said  to  be  regenerated  by  the  Spirit's  in- 
fluences? Is  it  by  being  immersed  in  those  influences?  So 
it  would  be,  according  to  Mr.  C;  for  he  tells  us  that  bap- 
tizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  nothing  else,  and  should 
liave  been  always  so  translated.     But  is  there  such  a  phra- 
seology as  being  immersed  in  the  Spirit's  influences? — No, 
—r-The  phraseology  is,   "I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit;"  and 
this  in  the  passage  is  styled  "being  baptized  by  the  one 
Spirit  into  one  body."     I  have  alluded  to  this  very  consid- 
eration in  my  fourth  letter,  as  an  argument  for  baptism  by 
affusion  and  not  by  immersion.    In  p.  43,  Mr.  C.  replies 
by  telling  me,  "that  a  child  mightputit  to  silence  by  ask- 
ing me,  "if  baptism  signify  sprinkling,  how  could  a  per- 
son be  said  to  be  sprinkled  into  the  Holy  Spirit?"  It  may 
suffice  to  say,  that  there  is  no  such  phraseology  in  Scrip- 
ture as  persons  being  immersed  iiito  the  Spirit,  or  his  in- 
fluences, m-  sprinkled  into  the  Spirit,  or  his  influences. 
The  phraseology  is,  "to  sprinkle  ivith,  or  upon.^^     "I.  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  iiponjou,  and  ye  shall -be  clean — and 
I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you;"  and  how  the  Spirit  is 
put  within  us,  Jehovah  tells  us  in  another  place — "I  will 
pour  water  upon  hiin  tha^  is  thirsty  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground;  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  thi/  seed,  and  my 
blessing  upon  thy  offsprings  and  they  shall  spring  up  as 
among  the  grass,  and  as  willows  by  i}:^^  water  courses." 
To  prevent  misrepresentations,  it  may  be  necessary  to  ob- 
serve here,  that  I  have  not  adduced  the  foregoing  passages 
as  a  proof  that  Christian  baptism  is  to  be  administered  by 
affusion.     That,  I  have  already  done  in  the  fourth  letter^ 
•*I5 


162- 

and  the  last  of  these  passages- when  duly  considered  Is  also 
fall  to  the  point.  I  have  adduced  tliem  only  that  the  rea- 
der may  see  that  notwithstanding  Mr.  C's  repeated  and 
confident  assertions,  that  bapthma  and  haptizo  always  sig- 
nify "immersion,"  and  to  ''immerse-'  in  the  Nev/  Testa- 
ment, yet  I  trust,  I  have  shewn  that  nothing  is  more  con- 
trary to  truth  and  to  fact. 

h\  the  fourth  letter  I  produced  the  authority  of  Schleus- 
jsER  confessedly  one  of  the  ablest  Lexicogi^aphers  of  ancient 
or  modern  times,  as  t^a}ing;  that  although  baptizo  is  used 
v/ith  some  frequency  in  Greek  authors  to  signify  'Ito  im- 
merse and  dye,  to  dip  into  water,  yet  in  this  sense  it  is 
never  used  in  the  Greek  Testamentl!'^  Mr.  C.  is  very  an- 
gry D.t  this,  as  was  to  be  e:spected,  and  in  p.  59,  demands 
his  autiwri ty  for  saying  so.  It  n^ight  suffice  to  say  that  it; 
is  not  to  be  expected  that  in  a  Lexicon  every  place  where 
the  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament;  Vv^ouldbe  partic- 
ularly mentioned,  and  the  reasons  assignefl  for  its  proper 
or  necessary  meaning  in  that  place.  This,  however  has 
been  done  by  Dr.  Rice  of  Richmond  in  the  first  number  of 
liis  Pamphleteer,  which  we  recommend  to  the  perusal  of 
all  who  wish  for  information  on  that  subject,  and  to  none 
more  than  to  Mr.  C.  and  his  fnend  PhiTalethes — it  may  do 
them  good.  The  words  "baptism^'  and  "baptize,"  as  he 
tells  us  in  the  close  of  his  pamphlet,  occur  ninety  times  m, 
the  New  Testament.  "Of  these  sixty  five  are  wholly  in^ 
determinate;  sixteen  on  the  whole  fevour  the  m.ode  by 
sprinkling  or  affusion;  two  or  three  of  these  make  it  mor- 
ally certain  that  the  ordinance  w  as  thus  administered;  and. 
of  the  remaining  nine  passages,  not  one  of  them,  nor  ail  to- 
gether, liowever  they  may  have  been  relied  on,  prove  that 
bapti'sni  was  administered  by  immersion."  The  late  Mr» 
J.  P.  Campbell  as  I  have  already  obsei-ved  in  the  fourth 
letter  has  examined  all  tlie  places  where  these  words  occur 
in  the  Septuagint,  and  proved  I  think  incontrovertibly,  that 
their  primary  meaning  in  that  translation  is,  "to  smear, 
to  tinge,  to  wet  with  some  liquid;"  and  that  to  immerse  is 
only  a  secondary  meaning:  this,  we  also  recommend  to  the. 
perusal  of  Mr.  C.  and  hfs  friend.  Mr.  C.  has  said  more 
than  once  that  the  Pedobaptist  clergy  in  general,  and  my- 
self in  particular  have  "taken  away  tne  key  of  knowledge" 
en  tins  important  subject,  and  in  p.  39,  he  requests  me  to 
tell  him  where  he  may  find  it.  I  cheerfully  comply  with 
his  reque^^t;  and  I  now  tell  him,  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in 


i63 
the  writiiio-S'  of  either  Booth,  or  the  Socmian  Robiksg?- 


but  in  tliose  passages  of  the  New  Testament  that  speak  ct 
baptism  as  an  ordinance  of  the  Christian  dispensation^  and 


aright,  I  have  no  doubt  of  his  soon  changing^  his  present 
opinions.  Near  twenty  years  ago  my  own  mind  was  agi- 
tated respecting  this  subject,  and  I  was  once  not  far  from 
embracing  the  same  opinions;  but  by  studying  those  pas- 
sages in  the  original  Language,  and  reflecting  as  closely  as 
I  could  on  the  subject,  I  was  led  to  embrace  those  which  1 
now  advocate.  1  placed  this  key  before  him  in  my  fourth 
letter,  but  either,  he  did  not  see  it,  or  found  that  it  would- 
not  suit  the  lock  constructed  by  BoaTH  and  Robinsox, 
and  therefore  the  cabinet  is  still  to  him  unopened.  If  he 
^^-ould  bear  it,  I  v/ould  advise  him  to  make  anotlier  triak 
it  might  be  profitable  to  him;  and  certainly  more  honoura- 
ble, than  to  be  publishing  indiscriminate  abuse  on  tlie  Pe- 
dobaptist  clergy,  as  ^-interes  led  priests,-'  * 'who  have  taken 
awav  the  key  of  knowledge  from  the  people. " 

As  for  the  detailed  list  of  Pedobaptist  writers  vrhich 
Mr.  C.  has  given  us,  in  pp.  40 — 43,  from  Booth's.  "Pe- 
DOBAPTisM  ExAMiKED,*'  and  who^  he  says  acknowledge 
that  hapihma  signifies  immersion,  and  baptizo  to  immerse^ 
it  is  nothing  whatever  to  the  point  at  issue— it  is  mere  so- 
phistry, and  as  I  will  shew,  something  worse  than  sopliistry:- 
If  I  was  worthy  to  be  ranked  with  such  respectable  company^ 
I  should  have  no  objections  that  he  would  add  my  name  to 
the  list,  for  I  liave  no  m  here  said  that  baptizo  signines  to 
sprinkle  onlv,  nor  is  there  any  thmgin  the  preceding  let- 
ters whence" such  an  inference  can  be  legitimately  drawn. 
That  those  words  are  used  by  Greek  writers  to  signify  to 
wash  by  immersion  is  acknowledged  by  Pedobaptist  wri= 
ters,  but  they  contend  that  the  Greek  writers  use  it  to  sig- 
nify to  wash  by  other  means,*  and  for  this  tliey  have  the 
authority  of  the  best  Lexicograpliers  and  critics,  both  an- 
cient and  modern.  Besides  those  already  adduced,  Schre- 
velius  defines  those  words  thus— "iopfisw^,  baptitma,  bap- 
iY^m''-J'-bfmtismt)s^  JoHg,  washing— 5«/)x2;:ro.,  baptizo,  to 
baptize,  mergo,  to  plunge,  lava,  to  wash;"  and  Stockius, 
one  of  Mr.  C's  own  authorities,  and  to  whom  i  have  had  late- 
ly access,  gives  hvo,  to  wash,  tivgo,  to  tinge,  as  the  first, 


164 

and  immergo,  to  immersev  as  the  secondary  meaning  of 
haptizo.  Amongst  the  Pedobaptist  aiithorities  adduced  by 
Mr.  C.  we  see  the  name  of  Dr.  Owen,  who,  he  says,  in 
his  posthumous  works  p.  581,  defines  the  word  thus,  "to 
dip,  to  iiyQ,  to  wash,  to  cleanse."  Now,  this  is  just  what 
Pedobaptists  say,  that  altliough  it  is  used  by  Greeic  writers 
to  Signify  to  wash  by  immersion,  yet  it  is  used  also  to  signify 
to  wash  by  other  means:  and  according!}''  Dr.  Owen  in  his 
exposition  of  Hcb.  9:  10,  tells  us,  that  '^baptism  is  any  kind 
of  washing  by  dipping  or  sprinkling,"  It  may  not  be 
amiss  however  to  observe  he^e,  that  .there  is  an  omission 
or  rather  suppression  of  the  Doctor's  words  as  quoted  by 
Mr.  C.  whether  by  him  or  Mr.  Booth,  from.whom  he  bor- 
rowed it,  I  do  not  know,  nor  is  it  material.  Mr.  C.  quotes 
Dr.  Owen  as  saying,  "that  no  honest  man  who  under- 
stands the  Greek  tongue  can  deny  the  word  to  signify  to 
dipj'"  whereas  the  Doctor's  words  are,  "no  honest  man 
who  understands  the  Greek  tongue  can  deny  the  word  ta 
signify  to  wash  as  well  as  to  dip."  And  not  only  is  this 
the  case,  but  tlie  same  great  critic  and  erudite  scholar 
says  in  the  same  place,  that  Hesychius,  Julius  Pollux,- 
Phavorinus  and  Eustachius,  critics  of  high  reputation,  ren- 
der the  word  "to  wash" — that  Scapula  and  Stephanas 
render  it  by  lavo  or  abhio,  which  Latin  words  signify  to 
wash  alsoj  and  that  Suidas  renders  it  by  madefacio,  lavo^ 
abluo,purgo,  raundo,  all  of  which  signify  to  wash  by  other 
means  than  by  immersion 5  and  I  know  of  no  other  means 
than  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  on  whatever  is  to  be 
washed.  We  also  see  amongst  Mr.  C's  Pedobaptist  autho- 
rities the  names  of  Calvin,  Beza,  Mastricht,  and  Leigh, 
who  he  says  acknowledge  in  their  writings  that  baptizo 
signifies  to  dip.  This  is  not  denied,  but  they  also  say  that 
it  signifies  to  sprinkle. "  Thus  Calvin  in  his  Institutes 
vol.  3,  p.  343,  ed.  N.  Haven,  says,  '^whether  the  person 
baptized  be  wholly  immersed",  and  whether  thrice  or  once, 
or  whether  v/ater  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him  is 
of  no  importance."  Beza  as  quoted  in  Reed's  Apology, 
says,  "Tiiey  are  rightly  baptized  who  are  baptized  by 
sprinkling.*^  Mastricht  as  quoted  by  the  satne.  Says, 
'•Baptism  signifies  ^washing,  either  by  sprinkling  or  dip- 
ping." To  the  same  purpose  is  his  qubtati^n  from  Leigh; 
"Baptism  is  such  a*  kind  of  washing  as  is  bv  plunging;  and 
yet  it  is  taken  more  largely  for  any  kind  of  washing,  even 
where  there  is  no  dij^ping  citalh^^ 


165 

Such,  are  some  of  the  Pedobaptist  authorities  which  Mr; 
C.  has  produced,  for  t^\e  purpose  of  proving  that  bapiizo  sig-- 
nifies  to  dip,  and  nothing  else.  This  must  be  his  design,  for 
SiTij  acknowledgement  from  them  that  would  not  amount  to 
this  could  be  of  no  service  to  him  in  the  present  contro^ersj. 
If  the  limits  assigned  to  this  letter  would  admit,  and  if  we  had 
access  to  all  the  other  authorities  he  has  brought  forv/ard, 
the  result  we  are  persuaded  would  be  the  same.  Indeed, 
the  very  consideration  that  they  v/ere  Pedobaptists  proves, 
that  their  opinion  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptizo  was  the  same  as  Br.  Owen's,  Calvin's,  Beza's^ 
Mastricht's,  and  Leigh's^  unless  we  believe  that  they  were^ 
the  very  worst  of  men,  who  practised  in  divine  things  con- 
trary to  their  belief—but  that  v/as  not  their  charactere 
The  list  which  Mr.  C.  has  given  us  has  the  air  of  exten- 
sive reading,  and  great  research,  and  with  some  will  give 
him  the  character  of  a  very  learned  man.  But  if  my  re- 
collection serves  me  right,  it  is  transcribed  if  not  altoge- 
ther, yet  pretty  generally,  fi'om  Mr.  Booth's  "Pedqbap- 
TisM  Examined,"  but  he  has  not  Mr.  Booth's  candouri 
for  Mr.  Booth  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Reed  in  his  apology  p. 
110,  "desired  his  reader  to  observe  that  no  inconsiderable 
part  of  these  learned  authors,  have  asserted,  that  the 
v\^ord  baptism  signifies  pouring  or  sprinkling  as  well  as 
immersion. "  Then,  my  opponent  Mr.  Booth  being  judge, 
I  am  not  '^condemned  by  my  own  leaders  and  friends," 
as  Mr.  C.  says  I  ami  but  in  the  m.eantime,  where  is  Mr. 
C's  candour  as  a  v>^riter,  and  honesty  in  quoting  other 
men's  writings.^ 

Some  of  my  readers  may  now  be  ready  to  ask;  why  does 
Mr.  C.  contend  as  tenaciously  as  he  does,  that  baptizo 
signifies  to  dip,  and  to  dip  only;  and  why  does  he  resort  to 
means  not  the  most  honorable  for  the  support  of  that  posi- 
tion.^ The  quantity  of  water  applied  to  the  body  in  that 
ordinance  cannot  of  itself  have  any  efficacy  on  the  person 
baptized,  as  the  efficacy  depends  entirely  on  sovereign 
grace.  The  ordinance  of  the  Supper  is  styled  ^'deipnon., 
a  word  that  signifies  a  full  meal,  and  ''a  great  supper," 
Luke  14:  I63  and  Baptists  themselves  do  xjot  contend, 
that  in  celebrating  that  ordinance,  the  communicant  should 
eat  a  full  meal;  and  admit,  that  vv'here  there  is  a  believing 
and  contrite  state  of  heart,  the  communicants  "shew  forth 
the  Lord's  death,"  and  hold  communion  with  Christ  and 
one  another;  although  they  eat  only  a  small  piece  of  bread,. 


and  drink  but  a  small  quantity  of  wine.— -Why  it  may  he 
risked  all  this;  and  how  is  this  strange  and  inconsistent  con- 
duct to  be  accounted  for?  In  this  way — If  the  word  in  Greek 
writers  is  used  to  signify  to  Vv'ash  by  other  means  than  by 
dippiag,  as  I  have  shewn  from  the  highest  authority  ancient 
and  modeniois  the  case;  and  if  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
inent  to  signify  washing  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  as  I  have 
also  shewn  is  the  fact:  then,  the  Baptist  system  as  it  res- 
pects this  point,  '-''tumbles  to  the  p;roundy^  and  Mr.  C's  po- 
sition that  "^immersion  is  the  only  baptism,"  is  not  only  un- 
S€riptural,  but  comes  under  the  character  of  what  tlie  apostle 
Phil.  3:  2,  styles  "the  concision,"  or  a  position  that  instead 
of  uniting,  lias  a  tendency  to  cuf,  and  rend  the  church,  and 
of  which  he  cautions  us  to  beware. — '^Beware  of  the  conci- 
sion: For  we  are  the  circumcision,  who  worship  God  in  the 
Spirit,  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in 
the  iiesh."  It  is  true,  that  the  caution  was  given  with 
respect  to  the  Judaizing  teachers  who  enjoined  circumci- 
sion as  w^eli  as  baptism  on  the  Gentile  converts;  but  it  is 
applicable  to  all  who  teach  and  enjoin  systems  that  tend 
to  ct(t  and  rend  ''the  Body  of  Christ,"  or  his  church.  It 
may  not  be  amiss  here  to  observe,  that  there  are  two  other 
Greek  words  duno,  and  dupto,  from  the  latter  of  which 
comes  our  English  word  '''dip,^^  and  which  are  used  to  sig- 
nify to  immerse  and  immerse  only,  and  it  cannot  but  have 
struck  every  reflecting  person  who  is  acciuaintcd  with  the 
Greek  tongue,  that  if  baptism  was  to  be  administered  by 
immersion,  and  by  immersion  only;  and  if  immersion  was 
necessary  to  constitute  the  validity  of  baptism;  then,  Christ 
who  appointed  this  ordinance  would  have  certainly  used 
one  or  both  of  these  v/ortls,  and  not  a  word  that  signifies  to 
wash  by  both  dipping,  or  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  on  the 
thing  or  person  to  be  washed.  If  it  is  said  that  ^Hluno'^  is 
used  sometimes  to  signify  "to  drown,"  or  ''to  sink  to  the 
bottom  like  a  stone,"  this  is  however  not  the  case  vvith 
"<:/?//>fo;"  it  simply  signifies  "to  dip,"  and  to  dip  only. 
Tliese  observations  she-w  the  silliness  of  one  of  Mr.  C's  ar- 
guments in  p.  37,  for  administering  baptism  by  im.mersion; 
that  as  the  Greek  words  'h'cdno^^  and  ranlizo  signify  to 
sprinkle  or  asperse,  and  bapfo  or  bcmtizo,  to  dip,  plunge, 
or  immerse;  nov/  as  in  English  v^'e  never  use  "to  dip,"  to 
signify  the  same  as  "to  sprinkle,"  so  never -does  rcnno  in 
Greek  signify  bapto,  nor  hapto,  rm?20."  It  is  enough  t6 
say  to  this-  ludicrous  argument^  partly  in  prose^  and  partly 


167- 

Hi  vei'se,  that  it  is- founded  on  what  logicians  call,  ^^petitio 
priiicipii,^^  or  begging  the  question.  It  takes  for  granted 
that  bapto  and  baptizo  signify  to  dip,  and  to  dip  onlyi  but 
I  have  shewn  from  both  sa<:red  and  profane  writers  that 
that  is  not  the  case. 

Before  I  close  the  examination  of  Mr.  C"s  strictures  on 
this  point,  it  may  be  necessary  to  observe  that  when  the 
heathen  Greek  writers  used  baplisma  to  denote  washing 
by  immersion,  they  meant  a  literal  washing  from  contracted 
filth,  but  when  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote 
the  initiating  ordinance  int<5  the  Christian  church,  it  is  used 
figuuftiively,  to  denote  the  removal  of  guilt  and  moral  pol- 
lution by  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  former  of  which 
is  styled  "the  blood  of  sprinkling*'  and  the  latter '>a  pour- 
ing out,"  or  sprinkling  clean  water  upon  us  that  we  might 
be  cleans  and  this  accounts  for  its  being  used  not  in  its 
.primary,  but  secondary  sense,  that  it  might  be  a  fit  emblem 
of  the  all -important  things  to  which  it  directs  the  attention 
of  the  person  baptized.     I  have  sometimes  thought  that  an 
inattention  to  this  circumstance  is  what  has  led  Mr.  C. 
and  other  Baptist  v/riters  to  contend  so  tenaciously  as  they 
do,  for  baplism,  by  immersion.     Because  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  the  word  is  washing  by  immersion  in  some  Greek 
writings,  they  have  tlience  drawn  the  conclusion  that  it 
should  be  so  understood  v/hen  denoting  the  initiating  or- 
dinance into  the  churcli,  without  reflecting  that  it  is  not 
used  in  a  literal  but  figurative  sense.     But  as  I  have  alrea- 
dy observed,  the  point  in  dispute  must  be  finally  settled  by 
the  meaning  which  the  inspired  penmen  have  affixed  to  it; 
and  what  that  meaning  is,  I  have  endeavoured  to  ascertain 
by  an  examination  of  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament.  •   M  r.  C .  may  now,  if  he  pleases,  bring  forward 
all  tiie  instances  he  can  collect  from  Greek  writers  who 
use  the  word  baptizo  to  denote  to  wash  by  immersion,  and 
all  tlie  other  instances  which  Mr,  Booth  has  collected  from 
Pedobaptist  writers  of  every  denomination  who  have  said 
the  same  thing:  provided  he  vv^ill  not  suppress  or  omit  their 
words  as  he  has  done  those  of  Dr.  Owen 5  and  when  he  has 
done  this,  Presbyterian  Pedobaptists  will  say  to  him  as 
Chillingv^orth  once   said  to  the  Roman  Catholic  writers^ 
respecting  the  Bible.      ''Tlie  Bible,  tlie  bible^    (said  that 
great  man)  is  the  religion  of  Protestants:" — So  say  we, 
The  New  Testament,  the  New  Testam^ent,  is  the  creed  of 


168 

Fresbyterian  Pedobaptists,  both  v/ith  respect  to  the  sub- 
jects, and  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
That  the  Nev/  Testamsnt'when  examined  in  the  original- 
language,  speaks  of  baptism  as  administered  bj  affusion, 
I  trust,  I  have  proved  in  the  fourth  letter.  And  indeed, 
this  was  to  be  expected  from  the  greater  spirituality,  sim- 
plicity, an-d  mildness  of  the  Christian  dispensation  of  grace* 
Although  I  admit  that  baptism  administered  by  immersion 
is  valid,  as  the  mode  of  applying  the  water  is  only  a  cir- 
cumstance,  and  enters  not  into  the  essence  of  the  ordi- 
nance, yet  I  may  confidently  say,  that  it  is  not  suited  like 
affusion  to  all  climates,  to  all  ages,  and  to  {jersons'under 
all  possible  circumstances.  Baptism  administered  by  im- 
mersion, in  the  mildest  climate,  would  be  attended  with 
immediate  death,  to  persons  labouring  under  some  diseas- 
es^ and  reduced  to  great  debility  of  body.  But  it  can  be 
administered  by  affusion  or  sprinkling,  with  the  greatest 
safety  to  sucli,  in  the  coldest  climate,  and  in  the  coldest 
season  of  the  year — under  the  Arctic  or  Antarctic  circles, 
as  well  as  under  the  Equator.  I  shall  select  as  an  exam- 
ple the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus.  When  Ananias  was 
sent  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  jiurpose  of  baptizing  him, 
and  that  he  might  receive  his  sight,  Saul  had  neither  eat, 
nor  drank  for  the  three  preceding  days.  Now,  would  it 
have  been  safe,  to  have  led  hiii^i  away  under  those  circum- 
stances, to  a  river,  and  immerse  him  in  cold  water,  or  is 
there  the  most  distant  hint  that  that  was  the  case?  On  the 
contrary,  we  are  told,  that  after  he  received  his  sight, 
Ananias  said  unto  him  "•anastas  baptised,,''^  which  literally 
means,  '^standing  up,  be  haptized;^^  and  this,  as  already  ob- 
served is  an  instance  of  a  baptism,  that  could  not  be  ad- 
ministered by  immersion,  for  v/e  are  expressly  told  that  he 
was  '-^standing,''''  at  the  time  the  ordinance  was  administer- 
ed unto  him.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  observe,  that  the 
translation  v.hich  I  have  given  to  the  participle  "«/i«.s7«s," 
is  not  forced,  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  a  particular 
point,  for  the  same  word  is  translated  in  the  same  manner 
in  Ac^s  1:  15.  ''•Anastas  Petros,^^  '*Peter  stood  up,"  or 
**Peter  standinj:  up,"  and  in  chapter  5:  34,  it  is  also  said, 
^'ancfsfas  de  ih^Pharisaios,'^ — Then  there  stood  up  a  cer- 
tain Pharisee,  &c. 

I  shall  close  this  letter  by  just  farther  observing,  that  in 
Acts  15:10,  Peter  styles  circumcision  "a  yoke  of  bondage," 
which  neither  the  Jews  of  that  day,  "nor  their  fathers  were 


169 

able  to  bear;"  and  it  was  doubtless  a  part  of  that  ''haad- 
writing  of  ordinances,"  which  Paul  speaking  in  the  name 
of  the  Jewish  nation  says,  **was  against  us,  which  was  con- 
rary  to  us,*'  but  which  he  tells  tliem,  Clu-ist  "took  out*of 
tiie  way,  hailing  it  to  his  cross:"  Col.  2:  14.  But  why  was 
t'ircumcision  such  a  *'yoke  of  bondage"  to  the  Jews.'^ 
Doubtless,  because  the  administration  of  it^  was  attended 
with  pain 5  but  every  person  must  see,  that  as  '*a  yoke" 
there  is  no  comparison  betwixt  the  administration  of  .that 
ordinance,  and  baptism  administered  by  immersion  in  nor- 
thern climates,  to  persons  labouring  under  dangerous  mal- 
adies^-for  painful  as  circumcision  was,  it  was  not  attended 
with  danger  to  the  life  of  the  subject;  but  not  so  with  bap- 
tism administered  by  immersion  under  the  circumstances 
which  I  have  mentioned.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  we  are 
to  expect  the  divine  protection  in  the  discharge  of  incum- 
bent duty,  although  life  may  be  endangered  or  lost,  in  the 
disclmrge  of  that  duty.  The  question  is;  are  we  to  suppose 
that  Christ  v*'ho  came  into  the  .world,  not  to  abridge  the 
privileges  of  his  church,  by  casting  out  those  h^.  had  once 
planted  therein,  but  to  enlarge  those  privileges:  and  not  to 
add  to,  but  to  take  away  those  burdens  which  he  had  im- 
posed upon  her,  for  v.ise  reasons,  for  a  certain  time,  would 
appoint  an  ordinance  binding  '*on  all  nations,"  the  atten- 
dance on  which  in  many  cases,  would  require  the  miracu- 
lous interposition  of  his  providence  for  the  preservation  of 
life,  when  tJie  end  to  be  answered  tliereby,  could  be  obtain- 
ed ^vithout  that  miraculous  interposition.  I  shall  only  add, 
that  I  do  not  offer  the  preceding  observations  as  a  positive 
proof  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  by  allusion  or 
sprinkling.  That  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  to  that  I  have  appealed,  and  do  appeal;  but  they 
are  certainly  entitled  to  serious  consideration,  as  they  go 
to  shew,  that  to  administer  that  ordinance  by  affusion  is 
agreeable  to  the  established  order  of  nature  and  fitness  of 
things,  but  to  administer  it  by  immersion,  would  in  many 
instances,  be  contrary  to  that  order  and  fitness.  From 
the  whole,  you  will  now  judge,  whether  ' 'immersion  is  the 
only  baptism,"  and  thatbaptisni  administered  by  affusion 
is  null,  and  void;  and  consequently,  that  there  never  was, 
nor  is,  a  church  of  God  in  the  world,  but  the  Baptist  church. 
We  will  inquire  into  the  origin  of  that  church  in  the  next 
letter. 

16 


LETTER  VllL 

TO  wipe  oflf,  as  he  tells  us,  '-Hhe  base  calumny^^  vv^icK 
I  have  cast  upon  the  Baptist  denomination,  Mr.  C.  from 
page  45,  to  57,  attempts  to  prove  that  the  Baptist  church 
existed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  that  there  has  been 
a  regular  unbroken  chain  of  Bapti'st  churches  from  that 
time  to  the  present  day. 

How,  any  man  who  has  the  least  regard  for  his  cliaracter, 
and  who  has  read  the  fourth  letter,  could  say,  that  I  have 
calumniated  the  Baptist  denomination,  is,  1  confess,  what 
I  cannot  account  for.  I  have  said  in  that  letter  that  *^it 
was  with  reluctance  that  I  have  introduced  the  German 
Anabaptists  at  all  into  the  Review — ''that  it  was  not  with 
a  design  of  casting  reflections  on  the  present  Baptist  church: 
for  although  I  think  them  mistaken  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism with  respect  to  the  infiints  of  church  members,  and 
the  mode  of  administering  that  ordinance,  yet  I  feel  happy 
in  saying,  that  they  have  evinced  for  upwards  of  a  century 
past,  that  thej^  have  renounced  the  anarckical  principles 
of  their  predecessors,  and  that  they  are  as  firm  supporters 
of  lawful  civil  government,  as  any  other  religious  denomi- 
nation. '^  Nor  have  I  calumniated  the  Anabaptists  of  Ger- 
many, nor  introduced  them  wantonly,  or  unnecessarily  in- 
to the  ''Review."  Mr.  C.  had  affirmed  in  the  appendix 
to  his  book,  that  "infant  sprinkling"  as  he  scoffingly  calls 
infant  baptism,  "has  uniformly  inspired  a  persecuting 
spirit. "  This  heavy  and  serious  charge  I  have  examined, 
by  an  inquiry  into  the  doctiines  held  by  Presbyterian  Pe- 
dobaptists  on  that  pointy  and  shewed,  I  trust,  tha{  their 
principles  instead  of  inspiring  that  hateful  and  wicked  spir- 
it, lead  to  benevolence,  and  to  the  cultivation  of  all  the  so- 
cial virtues.  If  my  reasoning  was  wrong,  Mr.  C.  should 
have  pointed  it  out;  but  instead  of  this,  he  makes  a  most 
furious  attack  on  the  characters  of  Calvin,  and  of  John 
Knox,  the  Scotch  reform'er,  because  they  were  Pedobap- 
tists;  and  because  as  he  says,  they  behaved  intolerantly  in 
some  instances,  to  Socinians  and  Papists — resumes  the 
subject  in  p.  60,  and  then  finishes  his  Strictures  v,  ith  a 
detailed  list  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Baptists,  or  rather  of  tiie 
anarchical  Anabaptists  under  the  kings  of  England. 


in 

1  have  no  disposition,  nor  am  I  under  any  necessity  of 
defending  any  intolerant  acts  of  Calvin^  or  of  Knox,  or  of 
the  kings  of  England.  Mr.  C.  has  not  proved,  nor  can 
any  man  prove,  as  far  as  actions  are  connected  with  the 
principles  whence  they  flow,  that  the  principles  of  Pedo- 
baptism  as  held  by  Presbyterian  Pedobaptists  lead  to  per- 
secution. If  Calvin  acted  intolerantly  to  the  Socinian 
Servetus  (and  that  is  justly  disputed,)  and  if  Knox  did 
not  disapprove  of  the  murder  of  the  blood-thirsty  and  per- 
secuting Cardinal  Beaton,  (but  he  had  no  agency  in  it)  it 
is  to  be  imputed  to  the  ignorance  of  the  age  in  which  they 
lived,  respecting  tVie- rights  of  man,  and  the  rights  of  con- 
science, together  with  their  recent  sufferings  from  Papal 
Romei  and  not  to  the  circumstance  oftheir  being  Pedobap- 
tists. Whatever  their  spots  and  failings  were  in  this  res- 
pect, it  is  to  their  zeal  and  intrepidity  that  the  present  gen- 
eration are  indebted-  for  the  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
which  they  so.richly  enjoy.  I  am  persuaded  however  that 
Mr.  C.  would  not  have  introduced  Calvin  and  Knox  into 
his  "Strictures,"  had  I  not  introduced  the  German  An- 
abaptists into  the  Reviev,-.  But  as  I  have  already  said, 
I  did  not  introduce  them  wantonly,  nor  unnecessarily. 
Principles  are  the  sources  of  actions.  I  traced  their  ac- 
tions up  to  their  principles,  and  shewed  at  the  same  time, 
that  the  political  and  theological  principles  avowed  and 
published  by  Mr.  C.  in  his  book  and  in  his  essays  against 
moral  societies,  and  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  against  vice 
and  immorality,  are  the  same  that  were  avowed  and  prac- 
tised upon  by  that  turbulent  and  disorganizing  people.— 
'''It  was  to  point  out  to  Mr.  C.  the  dangerous  tendency  of 
those  principles — to  induce  him  to  review  hh pi^esent  creed; 
and  to  induce  those  vv'ho  read  his  book  to  reflect  before  they 
adopted  those  principles.  *'  It  was  this  that  induced  me  to 
intimluce  the  German  Anabaptists,  and  to  mention  their 
conduct  as  the  result  of  their  principles.  He  has  made  no 
recantation,  nor  given  any  explanation  respecting  those 
principles,  but  by  ^vay  of  retaliation  poured  indiscriminate 
abuse  (m  Pedobaptists  as  persecutors,  without  shewing  that 
their  principles  lead  to,  beget,  and  foster  that  malignant 
spirit.  I  am  sorry  for  his  own  sake  that  I  have  failed  in 
my  benevolent  intentions.  Since*then  tliis  is  the  case,  I 
will  only  say,  what  his  friend  Philalethes  has  said  to 
myself  more  than  once,  wb<;lher  justly  or.unjustly  the  pub- 
He  vvill  judges  and  with  the  variation  of  substituting  Penn- 


172 

sjl vania  for  Israel — »'To  your  tents.  0  Pennsylvanians!'^ 
—-what  have  you  to  do  with  this  man  whose  principles  if 
imbibed,  lead  to  anarchy,  licentiousness  and  blood,-  and 
who  in  his  writings  has  given  the  fullest  evidence,  that  he- 
hates  the  Pedobaptist  clergy  w-ith  i'ne  most  cordial  hatred. 
li  is  v/ell  for  them  that  his  power  extends  no  farther  thaa- 
defamation;  for  every  reflecting  person  who  has  read  his 
Book  and  "Strictures,"  must  have  seen,  that  the  spirit 
manifested  in  both,  if  indulged,  and  an  opportunity  ofiered, 
would  push  him  on  to  persecute  them  farther;  shall  I  say 
—even  unto  death.  I  had  thought,  or  hoped  otherwise 
when  I  wrote  the  fourth  letter,  but  he  has  compelled  me 
to  change  my  opinion. 

Having  made  these  necessary  preliminary  observations, 
I  will  now  examine  Mr.  C's  testimony  for  the  existence  of 
a  Baptist  church  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  from  that  tiaie 
to  the  present  day.  But  before  we  enter  upon  this,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  state  the  question  fairly,  and  to  shew  with 
precision  wherein  the  Baptist  and  Pedobaptist  church 
agree,  and  wherein  they  differ;  fur  I  still  believe  that  there 
is  a  church  of  God  amongst  the  Pedobaptists.  I  would 
therefore  observe  that  it  is  a  principle  agreed  upon  betwixt 
iBaptists  and  Pedobaptists,  that  when  adult  persons  wiio 
have  not  been  baptized,  profess  faith  in  Christ,  they  ought 
to  be  baptized  on  that  professioni  This  is  a  principle  com- 
mon to  both,  and  on  this  principle  both  parties  act.  This 
observation  is  the  riiore  necessary,  because  I  am  persuaded, 
that  many  serious  and  vv  ell -meaning  Baptists  liave  impo- 
sed upon  themselves  by  supposing  that  all  those  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  whiei)  speak  of  adult  persons  being 
baptized  on  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  are  so  many 
proofs  for  the- Baptist,  and  sornany  arguments  against  tha 
Pedobaptist  system  and  Church.  Peter  Edwards  mentions 
a  Baptist  minister  who  for  many  years  had  imposed  upon 
himself  in  this  manner;  and  I  am  sometimes  inclined  to 
think  that  this  may  be  the  case  with  xtlr.  C.  But  let  it  be 
recollected  that  the  difference  betwixt  the  two  parties  is 
this — that  while  Pedobaptists  agree  with  Baptists,  that  un- 
baptized  persons  professing  faith  in  Christ  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized, they  contend  that  the  minor  offspring  of  such  should 
also  be  baptized;  and  that  pouring  water  on  the  subject  is 
a  scriptural,  if  not  thfeonly  scriptural  mode  of  administer- 
ing that  ordinance:  but  Baptists  say,  that  the- baptism  of 
such  infants  is  a  nullity;  and  not  only  so,  but  that  the  bap- 


173 

tism  of  adults  if  not  administered  bf  iminsrsion  is  a  nullity 
also.  *  There  are  a  few  sects  amongst  the  Baptists  who  do 
not  go  so  far;  but  according  to  Mr.  C's  creed  "iniiiiersion 
is  tlie  only  baptism  "  It  is  also  necessary  to  observe  far- 
ther, that  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  Mr.  C.  the  absurdity 
of  this  tenet,  I  observed  to  iiiui  in  the  fourth  letter  that  it 
was  incumbent  upon  him  to  prove  unequivocally,  or  by 
* 'positive  precept  or  precedent,"  that  the  apostles  baptized 
by  immersion  and  by  immersion  only;  and  to  trace  a  suc- 
cession of  Baptist  churches  from  their  time  to  the  present 
day;  "and  that  there  must  not  be  a  broken  link  in  the 
chain;  for  as  not  only  infant  baptism,  but  the  baptism  of 
adults  ifnot  by  immersion,  is  according  to  his  New  Cate- 
chism a  nullity;  then,  as  persons  baptized  in  either  of  these 
ways  ''are  still  in  an  unbaptized  state,  they  have  conse- 
quently no  right  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation  to  others.  This,  Mr.  C.  has  undertaken 
to  do,  and  let  us  now  attend  to,  and  examine  the  testimony. 

''''First  Century,  Anno  Domini  33,  we  read  in  a  well 
attested  history  of  a  large  Baptist  church  which  was  form- 
ed on  a  grand  model  by  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost  3000  souls  were  illumi- 
ned, led  to  repentance,  and  added  to  tke  ckUrch.'^ 

'-Added  to  the  church^^ — What  church?— -The'  Jewish 
church  certainly;  for  there  was  no  other  church  in  the  world; 
and  this,  according  to  Mr.  C's  own  acknowledgment,  is  a 
proof  that  tlie  Christian  was  '*added  to,''  or  ingrafted  into 
the  Jewish  ciiurch.  But  passing  this  by;  the  baptizing  of 
these  3000  is  just  what  Pedobaptists  wouldhave  done,  had 
such  an  extraordinary  circumstance  taken  place  amongst 
liiem,  and  what  their  Missionaries  amongst  the  Jews  and 
Gentiles  do  every  day,  whenever  any  profess  faith  in  Christ, 
and  request  to  be  baptized.  The  church  at  Jer  usal  em  then, 
has  not  as  yet  one  single  feature  of  being  a  Baptist  church. 
To  prove  it  a  Baptist  church,  Mr.  C.  should  have  proved; 
1st,  that  those  three  thousand  Jews  v/ere  baptized  by  im- 
mersion; and  2dly,  that  although  their  male  children  had 
previous  to  this,  been  admitted  into  the  church  of  God  by 
circumcision,  and  the  female  children  by  sacrifice,  that 
they  were  no  longer  entitled  to  that  privilege.  In  the 
fourth  letter,  I  have  assigned  reasons  why  it  is  apparent  to 
myself,  that  they  must  have  been  baptized  by  affusion;  and 
Mr.  C».  should  h.ave  shewn  the  invalidity  of  those  reason?, 
*16 


before  he  couM  claim  the  church  at  Jerusaleni  as  a  Baptist 
Church.  I  have  also  argued  from  tlie  words  '^t he  promise 
Is  toyoK^  and  to  your  children,^^  that  Peter  urged  arid  en- 
joined the  baptism  of  their  children  on  that  occasion,  as  v/eii' 
as  of  themselves.  Mr.  C.  should  have  also  shev/n  that  my 
inference  from  these  words  was  wron^.  But  this  he  has 
cautiously  avoided:  and  until  he  does  so;  I  must,  and  do 
claim  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  as  a  Pedobaptist  church  in 
the  fullest  sense  of  the  word..  '         ^ 

'  Mr.  C's  next  testimony  is  as  follows. — "The  secoijd 
church  that  v»as  planted  was  at  Samaria— Philip  went 
down  into  Samaria  and  preached  Christ  unto  them.  And 
the  people  with  one  accord  gave  heed  unto  tlie  things  which 
Philip  spa'ke.  Wlien  (not  before)  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom.of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized  6of/^  jnen- 
and  women.*'  <^'The  second  church  planted  (5ft  earth  was 
also  composed  of  men  and  v/omen  who  professed  faith  be- 
fore baptism;  consequently  a  Baptist  church." 

The  Samaritans  were  a  mongrel  people,  partly  Jews,  anci 
partly  Gentiles.  What  Philip  did  on  that  occasion  Pedo- 
baptists  have  done,  and  would  do  in  simiUr  eireimistancesv 
Mr.  C's  inference  therefore  that  thie  church  at  Samaria  wan 
a  BaptiM  church  is  what  logicians  call  '^«  ?ion  scquitury'' 
or  a  syllogism  in  which  tlie  conclusion  does  not  legitimately 
flow  from  the  premises:  for  all  tliatlie  has  told  us  concern- 
ing this  church  is  as  applicable  to  a  Pedobaptist,  as  to  a 
Baptist  church.  It  may  not  be  amiss  however  to  obseive, 
that  the  conduct  of  Philip  in  planting  the  church  at  Sa:^i- 
ARiA  was  calculated  to  destroy  that  ^^spiritual^'^  and 
*^spotIess''  church  for  whicli  Mr.  C.  and  his  brethren  the 
German  Anabaptists  contend.  Simon  Magus  was  one  of 
the  persons  baptized  on  that  occasion,  and  it  will  not  be 
contended  that  he  v/as  a  spiritual  man  at  the  time  he  was- 
baptized.  But  the  German  Ana.baptists  had  the  advan- 
tage of  Philip;  inasmuch  as  they  laid  claim  to  the  gift  of 
discerning  the  spirits  ofothers,  or  of  ascertaining  the  spir- 
itual state  of  their  fellow  men.  I  do  not  know  that  Mr. 
C.  lays  claim  to  this  gift,  but,  sure  I  am,  that  if  he  is  not 
possessed  of  it,  he  can  never  build  up  that  spotless  church 
for  which  he  contends. 

Mr.  C's  third  testimony  is  the  church  of  Cesarea.  "It 
is  (he  says)  a  church  interesting  to  us,  inasmuch  as  it  was^ 
a  Gentile  church,  or  a  Gentile  people  composed  it.'^ 


173 

"This  cliui'ch  (iic  adds)  was  evidently  a  Baptist  diurch." 
"While  Pet-er  spake  these  Avords,  the  Hoiv  Ghost /e//  on 
all  them  that  heard  the  word.-— Then  said  Peter,  can  anj 
man  forbid  water  that  these  shonkl  not  be  baptized  a.Sr 
well  as. we,  and  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the- Lord.*' 

This,  is  just  what  a  Pedobaptist  missionary  to  the  hea- 
then'would  do,  provided  it  was  now  the  will  of  God  to 
bestow  on  those  to  whom  he  preached,  the  gift  of  tongues,, 
as  was  the  ca&e  with  those  vAio  were  assembled  on  that 
occasion  in  the  house  of  Cornelius;  as  that  would  be  a 
sufficient  evidence  that  God  designed  such  p^-isons  for 
some  useful  purpose  in  his  church.  And  admitting  that 
the  Kolj  Ghost  was  then  poured  out  upon  them  iii  his 
sanctifying  influences,  it  alters  not  the  case.  It  proves 
only,  that  true  believers,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  have 
a  right  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism;  but  this,  as  already 
observed,  is  a  principle  common  to  Baptists  and  Pedobap- 
tists. 

But  besid'es  this;  the  words,  "can  any  man  forbid  wa- 
ter," to  myself  clearly  imply,  that  the  water  with  which 
they  were  baptized,  was  brought  into  the  liouse  or  apart- 
ment \\here  they  were.  And  as  I  have  shewn  in  the  4th 
letter,  that  the  manner  of  applying  water  in  baptism  is 
emblematical  of  the  manner  of  the  Spirit's  operations  on 
the  heart,  and  which  is  admitted  by  ^*Ir.  C.  then,  the  words 
^Hhe  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  that  heard  the  word,"  clearly 
import  that  the  water /«7,  or  v.'as  poured  out  on"  those  who 
were  baptized  on  that  occasion.  And  to  this  I  would  add, 
that  in  the  2d  letter  I  have  offered  reasons  which  to  vaj~ 
self  are  conclusive,  that  the  children  (Oikos)  of  Cornelius 
were  baptized  in  consequence  of  his  faith.  The  church  of 
Cesarea  then,  has  the  aspect  of  a  Pedobaptist,  and  not  of  a 
Baptist  church. 

Mr.  C.  also  claims  the  churcheis  at  Prilippi,  at  Corixth,. 
at  Rome,  at  Colosse,  at  Ephesus,.  and  the  churches  of 
Galatia  as  Baptist  churches,  because  he  says  it  may  be 
said  of  all  of  them,  "as  v/as  said  of  the  Corinthians,  \dz. 
many  of  the  Corintliians  hearing,  believed,  and  were  bap- 
tized." 

This,  as  has  been  observed  is  no  proof  that  they  were ' 
Baptist  churches..    But  there  is  something -said  of  the 
church  at  Philippi,  and  the  church  at  Corinth,  which  Mr. 
C.  should  have  noticed,  but  which  he  has  carefully  passed 


17G 

overf  and  v/hich  v/hen  exaimned,  positively  proves  that  they 
■were  Pedobaptist,  and  not  Baptist  churclies.  Lydia,  and 
the  jailor  are  the  first  members  of  the  church  atPhilippi  or: 
record,  but  it  is  positively  said  that  their  "/wi^se.i^"  or  fam- 
ilies were  baptized  at  the  same  time  with  themselves;  and 
what  the  inspired  penman  niiist  have  meant  by  their  hou- 
ses I  have  shewn  in  the  second  letter.  There  is  indeed 
nothing  said  of  the  manner  in  which  Lydia  and  her  house 
were  baprized,  but  with  respect  to  the  jailor  and  his  house 
all  the  circumstances  combine  in  proving  that  they  were 
baptized  by  alYusion,  and  not  by  immersion.  Mr.  C.  has 
seen  all  c»  is,  and  if  the  inference  I  have  drawn  was  WTong 
v.'hy  did  he  not  point  it  oiit.-* 

With  respect  to  the  church  at  Coiinth,  Paul  tells  us  1 
epistle  1:  16,  that  he  '^baptized  the  lioicse  of  Stephanas, 
and  iu  tiie  7th  chapter  he  tells  us,  "that  the  unbelieving 
liiisband  is  sanctified  by  the  w^ife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctilied  by  the  husband ^  else  (says  he)  were  their 
children,  unclean,  but  now  ar^  they  holy;"'  and  that  in  the 
word  "Ao/^,''  he  refers  to  the  baptism  of  their  children,  I 
trust  I  have  clearly  shewn  in  the  second  letter  also.  This 
settles  the  point  at  once;  and  the  very  first  link  in  the 
chain  of  Baptist  churches  from  the  days  of  tlie  apostles  to 
the  present  time,  is  unhappily  for  C.  wanting.  And  not 
only  is  this  the  case,  but  there  is  full  and  clear  evidence  that 
the  first  churches  at  Jerusalem — at  Caesarea — at  Philippi, 
and  at  Corintli  were  founded  on  tlie  Pedobaptist  plan  of 
baptizingthe  Aoi«se.5,  or  children  of  those,  who  themselves 
were  baptized  on  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  And  as 
there  was  doubtless  a  tiniformity  a.moiigst  the  apostles  in 
this  respect,  the  legitimate  conclusion  is,  that  the  other 
churches  were  founded  on  the  saine  plan,  or  "grand  model" 
as  Mr.  C.  expresses  it. 

We  miglit  here  close  our  examination  of  Mr.  C's 
"Strictures,"  for  it  is  of  no  moment,  when,  or  where,  the 
Baptist  system  and  clmrch  first  appeared,  since  it  is  no 
where  to  be  found  in  tlie  sacred  records.  But  as  he  has 
brougiit  forward  human  testimony  in  support  of  iiis  hypothe- 
sis, that  the  Baptist  churcli  existed  in  this  and  the  following 
centuries,  we  will  examine  this  testimony  for  a  few  centu- 
ries, that  he  may  not  say,  that  we  shunned  tlje  inquiry; 
and  that  if  we  cannot  find  the  Baptist  church,  we  may 
perhaps  in  the  way,  find  the  matrix  whence  it  sprung  in 
process  of  time. 


The  human  tcstiinonj  of  this  century  are,  ''The  Magde- 
burgenses,  ClemoRS.— Ignatius,  and  D.  Balthazar  Lidius.'' 
As  For  the  writers  of  the  Magdeburgh  Hi&torj,  their  testi- 
mony, or  rather  their  opinion,  "tr.'at  infants  were.not  bap- 
tized in  this  century,  and  that  baptism  was  administered 
by  dipping,"  it  cannot  be  of  any  weight  in  this  inquiry, 
even  as  human  testimony;  because  they  lived  some  centu- 
ries after -the  apostolic  age,  and  at  a  time  when  the  church 
was  considerably  corrupted.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
Balthazar  Lidius.  He  lived  still  later,  and  his  testimo- 
ny, "that  the  people  afterwards  called  Waldenses  prac- 
tised believer's  baptism  in  this  century,"  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose;  but  v/e  will  meet  with  the  "  Waldenses"  hereaf- 
ter. Who  Clemoxs  v/as  I  do  not  know.  Perhaps  Mr* 
C.  means  Clemens  usually  styled  Romanus,  and  by  some 
thought  to  be  the  Clement,  whose  name  the  apostle  Paul 
says  "was  written  in  the  book  of  life."  Admitting  this  to 
be  the  case;  his  testimony  "that  the  right  subjects  of  bap^ 
tism  are  such  as  have  passed  through  examirtation,  and  re^ 
ceived  instruction,"  does  not  prove  that  the  children  ot 
church  members  v/ere  not  baptized,  and  that  baptism  is  to 
be  administered  by  immersion,  and  by  immersion  only. 
The  testimony  of  Ignatius  vvhoitis  said  lived  in  the  apos- 
tolic age, — "that  baptism  ought  to  be  accompanied  with 
faith,  love,  and  patience  after  preaching,"  is  erjually  indefi- 
nite. Tlie  whole  world  at  that  time  was  composed  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  and  Clemens  and  Ignatius  are  evidently 
speaking  what  was,  or  ought  to  have  been,  the  character  of 
those  Jews  and  Gentiles  v/ho  believed  in  Christ,  previous 
to  their  being  admitted  into  the  Christian  church  by  bap- 
tism. Such  is  the  testimony  divine  and  human  vyhich  Mr. 
C.  has  adduced  to  prove,  that  the  infants  of  church  mem- 
bers were  not  baptized  in  this  century;  that  baptism  was 
administered  by  immersion,  and  by  immersion  only,  and 
that  "immersion  is  the  only  baptis'm;"  for  let  it.be'recol- 
lected,  that  it  is  this  that  (listinguishes  the  Baptist  from 
i]\e  Pedobaptist  church;  and  that  to  baptize  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles on  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  is  a  principle  and 
practice  common,  to  both.  I  think  I  may  say  that  he  has 
not  produced  even  a  shadow  of  proof;  and  that  his  own  tes- 
timony from  tiie  Nev/  Testament  proves  that.the  church 
iu  the  first  century  was  formed  on  the  Pedobaptist  plan.* 

*Tlie  scripture  history  from  the  death  of  Christ,  to  the  writing- 
of  the  last  of  raiil's  epistles  embraces  a  period  of  upv/ards  of  tliiity 


ITS 

Secori'l^Cen'imi.  The  only  testiTnonj  which  Mr.  C 
produces  in  proof  of  a  Baptist  Church  in  this  century  is  ars 
extract  from  the  2d  apok)gj  of  Justin  Martyr  to  the  Uo- 
man  Emperor  An^toxinus  Pius.  There  is  nothing  in  thi>; 
extract  as  given  by  Mr.  C.  that  bears  on  the  point,  but  the 
first  sentence.  It  is  this— "I  will  declare  unto  you  how 
we  offer  up  ourselves  unto  God,  after  that  we  ai*e  received 
through  Christ:  those  among  us  who  are  instructed  in  the 
faith  are  brought  to  the  water,  then  they  are  baptized  therdn 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son.  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

^  I  do  not  object  to  this  extract  because  it  contains  any 
thing  unfavourable  to  the  Pedobaptist  system,  for  you  will 
have  observed  that  it  alludes  only  to  those  adult  persons 
who  were  baptized,  and  I  will  shortly  prove  from  this  same 
Father  that  infants  were  baptized  m  his  day,  which  was 
near  the  very  a*ge  of  the  Apostles:  but  I  object  to  it,  as  not 
only  garbled,  but  unfairly  translated.  The  original  is  to 
b«  found  in  J,  P.  Campbell's  book  p.  101,  where  it  is  also 
translated,  and  which  I  will  also  shortly  produce  for  ano- 
ther purpose,  and  the  reader  will  then  see,  that  instead  of 
the  words  ''baptized iherehi,^^  v^hlch  were  designed  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  immersion  was  the  mode,  the  original 
words  are — en  to  hiidati  tote  Joittron poiouniaij^''  which  lit- 
erally signify  "they  are  then  made  clean  in  or  wilh  watery" 
and  it.  will  be  recollected  that  I  have  shewn  that  the  words^ 
*'-en  kudaiP'  in  Mark  1 :  8,  and  elsewhere,  necessarily  sig- 
nifies "with  water,"  and  is  so  rendered  by  our  translators, 
partial  as  I  have  shewn  they  were  to  dipping. 

Nov/,  that  this  father  v^^ho  lived  within  tarty  years  of  the 
apostolic  age,  teaches  that  infants  were  baptized  in  his 
day,  is  apparent  from  the  following  quotation,  the  original 
of  which  is  to  be  found  in  J.  P.  Campbell's  book  p.  98. 
*' Several  persons  among  us  sixty  or  seventy  years  old,  and 


We  are  told  in  that  liistory  of  a  number  of  Jews' and  Gentiles  be- 
ing- baptised  on  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ;  but  there  is  not  a 
sing-le  record,  nor  even  a  hint  of  the  children  of  such  when  arrived 
to  adult  ag-e  being  baptised  on  their  own  personal  profession  of 
faith.  1  know  of  no  way  of  accounting-  for  this,  but  that  they  were 
baptized  in  infanc}';  for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  none  of  them 
when  arrived  to  mature  age,  v\^ould  embrace  the  religion  of  their 
fathers.  To.  a  considerate  and  unprejjidiced  mind,  this  circum- 
stance v^ill  go  far  in  deciding  the  question  in  regard  to  infant 
baptisra= 


179 

0^  both  sexes  who  were  discipled  {^'ematheleuthesan'^'')  or 
made  disciples  to  Christ  in  their  childhood,  do  remain  un- 
corrupted.  *'  It  is  worthy  of  particular  notice  that  this  fa- 
ther uses  the  very  word  which  our  Lord  uses  in  Mat.  2:8: 
19,  v/hen  he  said,  '-Go,  disciple  {*^matheteutate^''  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
tSon,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost j"  and  is  a  proof  that  he  con- 
sidered this  pa£-v?:e  as  including  infrnts  as  well  as  adults. 
But  the  principal  object  which  I  had  in  view  in  bringing  for- 
ward the  quotation  from  this  father  is  this — t'lal;  as  th  ^  life  of 
man  is  now  confined  to  ""three' score  and  ten  years,"  with  a 
fewejiceptions^  then,  the  ^cffrfjjoeriwis  mentioned  by  this 
father  must  have  been  baptized  not  only  in  their  infa'ncy, 
bat  in  the  very  age  of  the  apostles.  Mr.  C.  indeed  in  p. 
105  of  his  book  objects  to  this  testimony  for  the  baptism  of 
infants,  by  saying,  that  the  Greek  words  "-ek  paidio?i'^^ 
translated  ''childhood^'^  may  signify  persons  often  or  twelve 
years  of  age,  *'and  that  persons  of  this  age  have  been  ad- 
mitted to  baptism  by  both  ancient  and  modern  Baptists." 
It  may  suffice  to  silence  this  flimsy  objection  by  observing, 
that  in  Luke  18:  15,  the  same  persons  who  are  styled 
^^brephe^^  irifants,  are  in  the  next  verse  styled  '•'pidtlia^^^ 
or  '^little  children."  This  same  father  as  quoted  and 
translated  by  J.  P.  Campbell  says  in  the  sgime  page,  'nve 
who  by  him  have  had  access  to  God,  have  not  received 
this  carnal  circumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circumcision, 
which  Enoch  and  those  like  him  have  observed;  and  we 
have  received  it  by  baptism^  by -the  mercy  of  God  because 
we  were  sinners;  and  it  is  enjoined  *to  all  persons  to  receive 
it  the  same  wajj'"^ — ''We  are  circumcised  by  baptism  v/ith 
Christ's  circumcision."  You  will  have  observed  that  this 
father  considered  circumcision  and  baptism  as  importing 
the  same  thing,  and  intended  for  the  same  purpose,  or  far 
conveying  the  spiritual  'circumcision,  and  that  it  v.as  en- 
joined to  all  persons  infants  and  adults.,  to  receive  it  by 
baptism.  Mr.  C.  objects  in  p.  106,  by  saying,  that  this 
father's  opinion  "that  it  is  enjoined  upon  all  persons  to  re- 
ceive the  import  of  circumcision  in  baptism,  is  his  own^ 
and  that  infants  are  not  capable  of  hearkening  to,  and  obey  - 
ing  tlie  injunction*."  I  have  shewn  however  that  the  apos- 
tle Paul  in  Col.  2:11,12,  was  of  the  same  opinion  with  this 
father,  and  taught  the  same  doctrine.  And  admitting  that 
the  opinion  ^\^s  wrong,  it  would  be  nothing  to  the  nurposej 
i(x  the  question  is,  what  was  the  practice  of  the  ciiurch  in 


180 

his  day  v,lth  respect  to  baptism,  and  his  words  in  this, 
and  the  former  quotation  clearly  prove,  that  it  was  the 
riglit  of  infants  as  well  as  adults?  It  may  not  be  amiss  to 
observe  far:  her,  that  in  tlie  above  quotation  Mr.  C.  has 
substituted  ^he  word  "?i;j07i"  for  "^o,"  and  this  laid  the 
foundation  for  the  iatt^^r  part  of  the  objection,  '*that  infimts 
are  not  capable  of  h&arkening  to,  and  obeying  the  injunc- 
tion." The  vvordin  the  original  is  "pjoA/Zo,"  and  exactly 
corresponds  with  our  English  word  "permit,'^  and  the  last 
clause  of  the  quotation  should  I  think  be  thus  translated 
— ^*lt  is  permitted,  or  allowed  to  all  persons  to  receive  it 
[spiritual  circumcision]  in  the  same  wayj  namely  by  bap- 
tism.'^ Tliis  not  only  solves  the  objection,  but  is  another 
instance  of  the  manner -in  which  Mr.  C.  treats  the  words 
of  liis  opponents,  when  those  words  militate  against  his 
system. 

Irexaeus  who  wrote  about  sixtj'-seven  years  after  Christ, 
and  was  then  an  agecfman,  says  concerning  Christ,  "that  he 
came  to  save  all  persons  who  are  regenerated  unto  God,  in- 
fants, little  ones,  youths,  and  elderly  persons."  That  by 
regeneration  he  meant  baptism,  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing quotation  from  Justin  Martyr,  already  alluded  to,  res- 
pecting believing  Jews  and  Gentiles.  '*Then  they  are 
brouglit  by  us  to  some  place  where  thiere  is  water;  and 
they  arc  regenerated  according  to  the  rite  of  regeneration 
by  which  wie  ourselves  were  rcgoierated;  for  they  are 
washed  with  ivafer  (or  made  clean  by  water)  in  the  name 
of  the  I'ather  and  Lord  of  all  things,  and  of  our  SavioUr 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  This  fix'es  the 
^meaning  of  the  word  ''''regenerated'^  as  used  by  the  Fa- 
thers in  such  a  connexion.  The  phrase  was  probably  ta- 
ken fi-om  John  3:  5,  or  from  Titus  3:  5,  where  ''the  wash- 
ing of  regenerati(m"  is  distinguished  from  "the  renewing 
of^the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  by  which  the  most  eminent  di- 
vines and  commentators  understa!id  ba*ptism;  and  this  is 
another  proof  that  baptism  was  designed  as  a  mean  of  re- 
generation. 

But  to  this  Mr.  C.  objects  in  the  same  page  by  saying, 
that  as  Pedobaptists  understand  the  word  '''•regeneraf.elP 
as  used  by  those  fathers,  it  will  follow',  that  all  baptized 
persons  shall  be  saved;  f()r  Irenaeus  says,  "that  Christ 
came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself;  all  1  say  who  are  re- 
generated (or  baptized)  unto  God,  iafants,  little  ones, 
youths,  and  elderly  persons."     The  expression  however 


LSI 

is  tlie  very  same  that  Peter  iisos  in  the  following  passage^ 
^•the like  figure  whereunto  baptism  doth  also  now saveusy^ 
and  understanding  the  passage  as  I  do,  that  baptism  was 
designed  as  a  mean  of  regeneration,  the  passage  is  clear, 
and  tlie  objection  dissipated  in  a  moment.  And  here  I 
cannot  but  observe,  tliat  according  to  the  Baptist  system, 
and  indeed  the  system  of  some  Pedobaptists,  baptism  is 
stripped  of  all  efficiency  as  a  divine  ordinance,  and  cut 
down  to  a  mere  symbol.  I  know  not  a  Pedobaptist  or 
Baptist  v/riter,  P^ir.  C.  excepted,  but  acknowledge,  that 
prayer,  reading  the  \\'ord,  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
were  designed  as  means  of  grace  for  the  unregenerate,  and 
that  these  with  the  ordinance  of. the  supper  were  designed 
as  means  for  conferring  farther  supplies  of  grace  on  the  re- 
generated; and  why  baptism  sliould  not  be  a  mean  of  grace 
also,  is  what  I  do  not  understand,  and  for  which  I  have 
never  heard  any  reason  assigned.  I  have  more  than  once 
observed,  that  the  words  ^'be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  to 
myself  clearly  convey  the  idea,  that  amongst  other  purpo- 
ses baptism  v/as  designed  as  a  mean  of  regeneration. — It 
may  be  worth  Vvhiie  to  those  Vv'hc  think  otherwise  to  exam- 
ine the  point  seriously  and  closely. 

But  Mr.  C.  has  another  objection  to  the  testimony  of 
those  fathers  for  infant  baptism, — that  they  held  a  number 
of  fanciful  theories  and  wild  conjectures,  and  so  wild,  "as 
to  render  tlieir  testimony  of  no  worth  on  any  doctrinal 
point  that  is  not  clearly  revealed  in  the  Nev/  Testament." 
As  we  will  m.eet  with  this  objection  again,  it  may  be  enough 
to  say  at  present,  that  we  do  not  refer  to  them  as  standards 
of  orthodoxy,  but  as  witnesses  for  facts,  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants in  their  day.  To  this  may  be  added  that  as  "it  is 
not  a  good  rule  that  will  not  work  every  way,"  why  then 
did  Mr.  C.  according  to  this  observation  of  his  own,  pro- 
duce Justin  Martyii  as  a  proof  for  the  existence  of  a 
Baptist  cliurch  in  the  second  century.  This  v/as  arguing 
ao-ainsthis  own  "i7«i«;"  and  not  only  so,  but  that  father 
^yith  Ids  cotemporary  Irenaeus,  unfortunately  for  the  Bap- 
tist system,  unequivocally  declare^  ''that  infants,  little 
ones,  youths  and  elderly  persons"  were  baptized  in  their 
day;  and  consequently  that  in  the  second  century,  the 
church  held  and  practised  as  Pedobaptists  do  in  the  pres- 
ent day. — We  have  not  met  with  even  the  shj^dow  of  the 
-Baptist  church  as  yet.  IT 


Third  Century.  In  support  of  his  affirmation  that  the 
Baptist  church  existed  in  this. century,  Mr.  C.  only  tells 
us  that  Mr.  Baxter  in  his  book  entitled  *sSaints  Rest/' 
1  ed.  part  1,  chp^p.  8.  sect.  8,  acknowledges  that  Tertul- 
LiAN,  Origen,  and  Cyprian  who  lived  in  this  century  do 
affirm  that  in  the  primitive  times  none  were baptized^hut 
such  as  engaged  to  obey  him."  (God.) 

I  have  not  the  first  edition  of  Mr.  Baxter's  book,  and 
cannot  therefore  positively  say  that  v.hat  Mr.  C.  says  is 
not  true;  but  this  I  will  novt^  prove;  that  Tertullian,  Ori- 
GEN,  and  Cyprian,  say  the  very  reverse;  and  if  Mr.  Bax- 
ter has  said  what  Mr.  C.  represents  him  as  saying,  he 
must  have  had  referenc-e  to- adult  persons  who  were  baptiz- 
ed; but  this,  let  it  be  remembered  is  nothing  to  the  point 
in  hand,  and  belongs  not  to  the  present  question.  That 
Mr.  Baxter  must  have  had  such  reference  is  connrmed  by 
the  consideration  that  he  was  a  warm  Ped;ibaptist,  If  any 
person  should  doubt  it,  the  torrent  of  abuse  which  Mr.  C. 
pours  upon  him  through  Mr.  Booth  in  the  5th  No.  of  the 
Appendix  to  his  book  will  convince  him  of  the  contrary. 

In  the  debate  Mr.  W.  read  from  J.  P.  Campbell's  book 
a  large  extract  from  Tertullian's  works  as  a  proof  that 
infant  baptism  was  the  prevalent  doctrine  and  practice  of 
the  church  in  his  day.  I  have  not  room  for  the  whole  of 
the  extract  in  this  letter;  the  following  may  answer  every 
purpose  at  present: — '^Therefore  the  delay  of  baptism  is 
the  more  expedient,  as  it  respects  the  condition  and  dispo- 
sition, as  well  as  tlie  age  of  every  person  to  be  baptized; 
and  this  holds  more  especially  in  reference  to  little  ones^  for 
what  occasion  is  there  except  in  cases  of  urgent  necessity, 
that  the  sponsors  be  brought  into  danger,  who  are  alike  lia- 
ble through  death  to  fail  in  accomplishing  their  promises; 
and  to  be  deceived  by  the  evolution  of  some  evil  disposi- 
tion"— "Why  does  this  innocent  age,  Itasten  to  the  remis- 
sion  of  sins,  i.  e.  to  baptism." 

In  p.  108,  of  his  book,  Mr.  C.  admits  (for  it  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  denied)  that  Tertullian  speaks  of  the  baptism  of 
infants  in  the  above  extract,  but  objects  to  his  testimony, 
because  as  he  says  in  p.  109,  "Ae  appears  like  one  opposing 
an  error  of  recent  date''' — because  he  speaks  of  spimsors  for 
infants — because  he  mentions  a  number  of  frivolous  and 
superstitious  practices  that  accompanied  baptism  in  his  day 
— and  because  he  held  and  taught  a  number  of  extravagant 
opinions. 


183 

It  is  not  true  that  Tertullian  speaks  against  infant 
baptism  as  an  innos^ation:  nor  could  he  do  so,  for  I  Have 
proved  that  it  was  the  prevalent  doctrine  and  practice  of 
the  church  in  the  two  preceding  centuries;  and  althotagh 
Mr.  C.  in  page  117,  ^'•ch-allcno^ss  all  Chnstendom^^  on  this 
very  point,  i  here  ''challenge"  him  or  any  other  man  to 
produce  any  passage  from  any_  of  Tertuilian's  works  in 
which  he  speaks  of  infant  baptism  as  an  innovation  in  his 
day.  I  know  all  that  Historian  Robinson  has  said  about 
ihe  tatin  word  ^'parvziU,''  and  which  Mr.  C.  alludes  to  ia 
p.  1 17,  and  am  prepared  to  meet  it.  Tertullian  did  in- 
cieed  advise  agamst  infant  baptism,  and  also  against  the 
baptism  cf  unmarried  persons,  because  he  thought  that  sins 
committed  after  baptism,  if  not  altogether,  were  next  to 
unpardonable.  But  v/ith  the  singularity  of  the  opinion  we 
have  nothing  to  do  in  the  present  inquiry,  and  his  advising 
rgainst  it,  i's  a  proof  that  it  did  exist  in  his  day;  for  men 
do  not  advise  against  that  which  has  no  existence.  Besides, 
if  according  to  Mr.  C's  reasoning  the  cirjcumstance  of  IrU 
advising  against  it,  is  a  proof  that  it  was  "an  innovation  of 
recent  date,"  then  the  same  reasoning  will  prove  that  no 
unmarried  persons  were  baptized  previous  to  his  day,  for 
he  advises  against  the  baptism  of  such,  for  the -same  singu- 
lar reason.  Nor  is  i^ae  obj ection  of  sponsors  for  infants  be- 
ing  admitted  in  his  day  o"f  any  more^v/eight,  whether  they 
were  admitted  in  the  case  oi"  orphan  children,  as  is  most 
probable,  or  of  children  whose  parents  were  living;  the  very 
circumstance  is  a  proof  that  infants  were  then  baptized, 
and  that  is  all  that  concerns  lis  in  the  present  iiwestigation. 
■—The  frivolous  and  superstitious  ceremonies  mentioned 
by  Mr.  C.  in  p.  Ill,  and  which  form  another  part  of  his 
objection,  are  as  follows.— ^'Renouncing  the  devil,  and  all 
his  pomps,  and  ministers — a  being  plunged  in  the  water 
three  times^ — tasting  of  milk  and  honey — bathing  them- 
selves every  day  of  the  vrhole  week — not  to  fast  on  Sundays 
—to  pray  iinto^Tod  kneeling — oilering  yearly  oblations  in 
honour  of  the  martyi^s — not  to  suiTer  any  part  of  the  mne 
and  consecrated  bread  to  fall  to  the  ground — and  to  sign 
Ihemselves  with  the  sign  of  the  cross."  Now,  how  any 
•aan  could  infer  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism  from 
those  superstitions  observances,  is  really  surprising.  Are 
fiiich  things  the  actions  of  infants,  or  are  they  in  any  wise 
connected  ^\ith  infants,  or  infant  baptism?  Who  but  Mr. 
C.  would  ever  dream  of  ascribing  4he  introduction  of  infant 


184 

briptism  to  such  a  dissimilar  aiidiiiadeqiiato  causey  as  there 
is  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  must  be.  a  sinitJaritj  between 
cause  and  effect.  That  Tertullian  held  and  taught  a 
number  of  wild  and  extravagant  opimons,  and  which  Mr. 
C.  details  from  p.  109.  to  p.  115,  is  readily  admitted ^  but 
that  this  disqualifies  him  ibr  beiug  a  competent  witness  for 
iacts,  and  for  facts  that  happened  everj  day  under  his  own 
eye,  is  denied.  I  agree  with  Mr.  C.  \hat  those  opinions 
tended  to  corrupt  the  clwir'ch,  already  considerably  tainted^ 
but  that  they  introduced  infant  baptism  is  altogether  gra- 
tuitous. I  have  shewn  that  it  v/as  practised  in  the  church 
m  the  tv/o  first  centuries,  and  as  I  have  already  observed, 
Tertuliian's  advising  against  it,  is  of  itself  a  proof  that  i't 
was  practised  in  his  day.  As  he  was  a  very  learned,  elo- 
quent, and  popular  writer,  his  advising  against  it,  for  tivi 
singular  reason  already  mentioned,  induced  some  in  pro- 
cess of  time  to  cast  infants  entirely  out  of  the  church,  where 
I  have  shewn,  they  had  been  planted  by  t\\Q  apostles^  and 
here  I  think  Mr.  €.  might  find  the  matrix  whence  the  Bap- 
tist sj^stem  in  relation  to  infants  naturally  and  legitimately 
sprung.  I  have  farther  shev;n  in  a  Note  in  the  4th  letter, 
that  this  same  father,  taught  also  that  there  was  a  regerx- 
erating  influence  or  efficacy  in  baptismal  water.  This,  as 
wTvS  to  be  expected,  introduced  baptism  by  immersion,  as 
those  who  em.braced  this  opinion,  would  naturally  conclude, 
that  to  apj)ly  water  to  only  a  part  of  the  body  could  produce 
only  a  partial,  but  to  immerse  the  v/liole  body  in  v/ater 
w  ould  produce  a  total,  or  entire  regeneration.  This  opin- 
ion prevailed,  and  firmly  maintained  its  ground  in  the  dark 
ages  of  Popery,  nor  was  it  generally  expelled  lintilthe  re- 
vival of  literature  at  the  auspicious  era  of  the  heformatiox. 
It  still  prevails  to  a  great  degree  in  the  Greek  Church, 
which  it  is  well  knov/n,  is  still  immersed  in  much  intellec- 
tual and  moral  darkness;  and  not  as  Mr.  C.  asserts,  to 
their' knowledge  of  the  Greek  word  hctpiizo;  for  fevv'  of  them 
are  acquainted  with  ancient  Greek  literature:  and  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  modern  Greek  is  in  ma- 
ny instances,  very  unlike  that  vv^liich  was  written  bj  ancient 
Greek  authors.  From  t'le  v/hole  of  this  testimony,  eveiy 
intelligent  and  reflecting  person  who  has  read  the  extracts 
from  Tertuliian's  writings  Vvhich  were  read  in  the  debate^ 
and  also  tliose  brought  forward  by  Mr.  C.  in  his  book,  will 
see,  that  it  is  not  true  that  Tertullian  spoke  against  iti- 
fant  bapti?m  as  an  "in;ie>-v:ation"  in  the  church,  but  only: 


advised  against  it  for  the  reasons  men tianedj  and  that  no 
man  has  ever  ascribed  effects  to  such  dissimilar  and  inade- 
C[uate  causes  as  Mr,  C  has  done.  Such  a  reader  will  also 
judge,  whether  thexauses  which  I  have  assi^-ned  for  casting 
infants  out  of  the  ciiur'ch,  and  for  introducing  baptism  by 
immersion,  are  such,  as  were  adecpate  to,  and  calculated 
to  produce  that  e fleet. 

To  Silence,  and  if  possible  to  put  to  shame  the  assertion, 
that  infant  baptism  v/as  introduce^  into  the  church  in  this 
ceni;ury,  I  will  suhjoin  the  testimony  of  Origen,  one  of 
the  most  learned  men  of  the  age,  who  flourished  from  215, 
to  252,  and  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  state  and 
practice  of  the  church  in  this,  and  the  preceding  centuries. 
An  extract  or  two  from  his  works  read  at  the  same  time  by 
Mr.  W,.  -is  all  we  can  admit  at  present. — ''Besidesall  this, 
l&L  it  be  considered,  what  is  ih^  reason  that  whereas  the 
baptism  of  the  church  is  given  for  t\\e  remission  of  sins, 
infants  also  are  by  tke  usage  of  the  church  baptized.''^'-" 
""Having  occasion  given  by  this  place,  I  v/ill  mention  a 
iiiatier  v/hich  excites  frequent  inquiry  among  the  brethren. 
Lijuats  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins. '  Of  what 
sins,  or  when  have  they  sinned?  Or  how  can  any  reason 
of  baptism  be  alie;?;ed  in  their  case,  unless  it  be  in  confor- 
mity to  the  sense  just  now  expressed,  iiamely"^  that  none 
is  free  from  poiiution,  though  his  life  be  uvx  the.  length  of 
one  daj^  upon  the  earthy  and  it  is  Ur  that  reason,  because 
by  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  the  pollutions  of  our  birth 
are  taken  away."  Perhaps  My.  C.  may  say  to  me,  as  he 
did  to  Mr.  W.  as  Origen  held  baptism  to  be  a  purgative 
from  ail  previous  sin,  >*wiiy  then  do  you  not  hold  and  teach 
infant  baptism  in  the  same  -light?"  It  is  facts,  and  not 
opinions  that  we  are  now  inquiring  after,  and  here  is  ano- 
ther indubitable  fact  that  infants  were  baptized  and  uni- 
versally baptized  in  the  third  century.  And  yet  I  must 
confess  that  I  have  been  rather  sjirprlsed  at  tins  last  objec- 
tion, as  I  have  for  some  consid'crable  time  strongly  sus- 
pected that  the  Baptisi  clergy  are  generally  infected  with 
the  opiiiioiis  of  Ter.tullian  and  Origen,  that  baptism  by 
immersion  is  a  purgative  from  all  previous  guilt  and  sin* 
1  have  seen  what  tiiey  have  called,  and  may  have  been,  a 
revival  of  religion  amongst  them,  and  heard  of  others;  and 
from  a.11  I  have  seen  and  heard^  the  cry,  and  the  burden  of 

"   *17  •    - 


16b 

the  preaching  on  tho&e  occasions  ^vas^—\V tiler,  water, — 
To  Jordan,  to  Jordan.  * 

*  Mr.  C.  has  connrnied  my  suspiclGns.  that  the  Baptist  clerg'y 
g-enei'ally,  consider  baptism  by  immersion  as  a  purgation  from  al! 
previous  sin.  In  the  debate  with  Mr.  Macalla,  he  teils  us,  "that 
to  every  believer  baptism  is  a  formal  and  personal  remission  or 
purgation  of  sins" — "and  so  sig-nificant,  and  so  expressive  a  pledge 
on  the  part  of  Christ,  that  when  the  baptised  believer  rises' out  oi 
the  water,  is  born  of  water,  and  enters  the  world  a  second  time,  lie 
enters  it  as  umncent,  as  clean,  as  unspotted  as  an  angel."  p.  135 — 7. 

If  this  is  indeed  the  case,  then  baptism  by  immersion  is  worth 
contend-ing-  for;  and  the  docti-ine  taught  in  the  above  quotations, 
accounts  for  that  zeal  and  industry  which  Mr.  C.  and  his  follower-^ 
have  manifested  in  propagating  their  system,  lie  does  indeed 
say  in  p.  137,  "that  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  alone  cleanses  us 
from  all  our  sins" — but  then  "the  water  of  baptism  washes  away 
our  sins."  "When  I  read  these  passages,  I  understood  him  as  saying, 
in  the  first  of  them,  that  baptism  is  "a  pledge,"  "a  formal  proof 
and  token,"  that  the  guilt  of  the  immersed  behever  is  removed  by 
the  blood  of  Christ;  and  that  in  the  latter  he  had  reference  to  the 
spirit's  influences,  in  cleansing^  his  heart  so,  through  that  ordi- 
nance,  as  to  make  him  **as  innocent,  as  clean,  as  unspotted  as  an 
angel."  But  he  soon  undeoeived  me,  and  told  me,  that  this  migh- 
ry  change,  is  by  the  divine  appointment,  effected  by  baptismal 
water  alone;  and  indeed  there  is  not  the  least  reference  to  the 
spirit's  agcficy  in  all  he  has  said  on  the  point,  in  the  pages  quoted. 
•'The  believer  (he  says)  never  has  his  sins  formally  washed  awa}  y 
until  he  is  baptized.  The  water  has  no  efficacy  but  what  God's 
appointment  gives  it,  and  he  h;is  made  it  sufficient  for  this  pur- 
pose." The  proof  adduced  in  support  of  the  preceding  positions 
are,  Peter's  words — "be  baptized  for^the  remission  of  sins" — "and 
baptism  doth  also  now  save  us:"  The  words  of  Ananias  to  Saul — 
"arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins.-"  And  the  words, 
of  Paul  to  Titus — "the  washing  of  reg'cneration." 

Whatever  aspect  tlie  three  first  of  these  passages  has,  in  sup- 
porting his  positions,  it  is  strange  to  find  him  pressing  the  last  of 
them  into  his  service;  unless  that  he  believes  that  regeneration  is 
conveyed  through  the  washing  of  baptism;  but  that  would  over- 
turn his  system.  I  need  scarcely  observe,  that  I  understand  the 
foregoing  passages  as  teaching,  that  baptism  was  appointed  as  one 
of  the  means  through  which  the  regenerating  influences  of  tlie 
spirit,  and  that  faith  which  apprehends  the  blood  of  Christ  '-fcr 
the  remission  of  sins,"  is  often  conveyed.  If  this  is  not  tlieir 
meaning,  I  cannot  afHx  any  determinate  idea  to  theni;  especially 
to  the  words  of  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  "and  ye  shall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  the  words  of  Paul  to  Titus,, 
"the  washing"  of  regeneration;"  for  you  wdll  have  observed,  that 
regeneration  is  mentioned  as  the  consequence  of  "washing,'^  and 
"tiie  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  was  to  be  confeired  on  the  Jews  on 
their  submitting  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus. 


it  is  scarce!}^  ncces'^arj  to  add  to  thii,.  the  testlifcoRy  of 
Oyprian,  vrlio  ilourished  also  in  this  century.  A  single 
.jx tract  from  a  decree  made  by  him  and  sixty-six  other 
bishops  at  Carthage  in  252,  and  sent  to  one  Fidus,  is  all 
Ave  can  admit,-  and  may  be  saiiicient  for  ou r  purpose.  '^V/e 
read  your  letter  dear  broth^r^— But  witii  respect  to  the 
case  of  infants  which  as  you  have  stated,  should  not  be 
6c^/*2:e^  within  the  second  and  third  day  aftei-  their  bh-thi 
and  as  to  what  you  ahso  soggest,  that  the  rule  of  the  ancient 
circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  reqniring  that  none  are  to 
be  baptized  and  sanctiiied  before  the  eighth  daj  after  na- 
tivity,* it  hatli  appeared  far  otherwise  to  us  all  m  council^ 
for  as  to  what  you  conceived  should  be  done  in  this  atf?it%, 
not  a  single  person  thought  v.'ith  you,  but  we  all  gavi;  it  :  s 
our  opinion,  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  should  I  j 
denied  to  none  of  the  human  kind.  *' 

I  will  now  only  say;  that  never  was  a  fact  better  establish  - 
ed  than  that  infant  baptism  was  tiie  prevalent  practice  of  Un 
church  in  the  third  century;  and  that  never  v.as  a  more 
hold  and  shameless  inference  drawn  from  any  premise?. 
than  Mr.  C  in  p.  121,  has  drawn  from  the  foregoing  doc- 
uments, that  infant  baptism  v/as  first  decreed  by  tiiis  cOun  - 
oil  of  Carthftge.  A  bare  inspection  of  the  decree  shews, 
that  the  question  before  the  council  was  not,  '*^shall  infants 
be  baptized,-' but  shall  they  be  baptized  before  the  eightii 
day  after  their  nativity;  and  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
council  was,  that  they  should  be  baptized  as  soon  as  it  was 
convenient  and  practicable. 

Fourth  Century.  .  As  a  proof  of  a  Baptist  church  in  this 
century,  Mr.  C.  tells  us  that  Jerome,  who  lived  in  tliis 
century  taiig-ht  that  T?erscns  must  be  "instructed  before 

T  shall  only  flivther  observe,  that  Mr.  C.  admits  chat  the  **unspat- 
ted"  and  ang-elic  immersed  believer  may  ag-ain  fall  into  sin;  b\it 
how  sin  ag-ain  enters  his  "clean,"  and  ang-elic  heart,  he  has  not 
told  us,  and  when  this  is  the  case,  how  it  is  again  "washed  away." 
He  is  requested  to  tell  us  this  in  his  next  publication;  and  how  it 
comes  to  pass  that  this  is  tlic  case  with  all  of  them  of  whom  we 
have  any  knowledg-e;  for  as  far  as  my  acquaintance  with  them  ex- 
tends, they  are  no  'purer  than  their  unbaptised  Pedobaptist  neig-h- 
bours.  He  is  also  requested  to  tell  us,  why  he  now  advocates  the 
doctrine,  "that  baptism  is  a  purg-ation  of  all  sins,"  and  for  holding- 
which,  he  so  strongly  condemned  the  ancient  fathers,  in  his  de- 
bate with  Mr.  Walker.  The  solution  of  these  theolog-ical  prob- 
lems will,  no  doubt,  be  anxiously  looked  for  by  the  publick,  and 
"by  none  laore  so,  than  by  the  writer  of  this  note. 


188 

they  are  baptized^  for  it  cannot  be  thai  the  b^dy  should  re- 
ceivs  the  ordinance  of  bapcism,  before  the  soul  has  re- 
csiTed  vm  true faidi. "  He  adduces  Epiph anius  bishop  of 
Cyprus  to  the  same  purport:  and  that  the  council  of  Lao - 
dicea  of  Neocsesarea  ordained,  ''that  who-ioever  were  to 
be  bapti2.ed,  should  give  ia  their  naaies,  and  after  due  ex- 
amination be  baptized."  But  as  I  iiave  frt^uentiy  observ- 
ed this  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  regulations  or- 
dained by  that  council  evidently  refer  to  adult  unbaptizcd 
persons:  and  that  it  v/as  of  such,  that  Jerome  spoke  is  e- 
qually  evident.  But  this  is  not  all,  Herd  in  his  apology 
p.  277,  quotes  Jerome  as  saying,  "If  infants  be  not  baptiz- 
ed, the  sin  of  omit  tins;  their  baptism  is  laid  to  their  parent's 
charge. " 

Ambrose  v/hoalso  lived  in  the  latter  end  of  this  centu- 
ry, and  as  quoted  by  J..  P.  Canipoell  p.  105,  speaking  of 
the  Pelagian  iieresy  which  began  then  to  appear  says,  that 
this  hypothesis  vt^ould  infer  ^'evacicatio  baplismatis  parvH' 
loTuni.,^^  or  the  nullity  of  infant  baptism."  To  this  I  will 
only  add  the  testimony  of  Augustine  who  also  flourished 
in  this  century,  and  which  v/as  also  read  in  1l\\q  debate  by 
Mr.  W.  "And  as  the  thief  who  by  necessity  went  witli- 
out  baptism,  was  saved,  because  by  his  piety  he  had  it  spir- 
.itualiy:  so  where  baptism  is  had,  though  t!\\(i  party  by  ne- 
cessity go  v/ithout  that  (fiuth)  whicli  the  thief  had,  yet  he  is 
saved.  Which  the  whoh  body  of  the  church  holds  as  de- 
livered to  ihem  in  the  case  of  little  infanta  baptized,  who 
certainly  cannot  yet  believe  with  tlie  heart  unto  righteous- 
ness. -'  I  need  scarcely  observe,  that  this  is  proof  positive, 
not  only  for  the  baptism  of  infants  in  this  century,  but  tliat 
it  was  the  practice  of  the  body  of  the  crhurch.  The  objec- 
tion w^hich  Mr.  C.  brings  against  tins  testimony  in  p.  116 
of  his  book  is  disgraceful  to  any  man.  He  represents  Au- 
gustine as  saying  that  '-the  whole  body  of  the  church  re- 
ceived infant  baptism  ''from  the  council  of  Carthage." 
Tliere  are  no  such  words  in  any  of  the  extracts  made  trom 
him,  nor  yet  in  any  of  his  writings.  On  the  contrary  both 
Augustine  and  Jerome,  as  quoted  by  J.  P.  Campbell  in  p. 
80,  say,  Blessed  Cyprian  declared  not  that  no  body,  but 
that  710  sold  was  to  be  lost,  and  with  a  number  of  his  fellow 
bishops  decreed,  thai  an  infant  might  with  propriety  he  bab- 
tized  immediaieiy  after  the  Jnrth;  not  thereby  forrnmg  some 
new  canon,  but  observing  the  viost  firmly  established  faith 
of  the  c/?.urc/;,~Tliis  was  read  in  Mr.  C's  hearing:  at  the 


debate.  Ke  olijeets  also  that  Aiigastine  held,  with  Tor- 
tullian,  Origen,  and  Cvpriaii,  that  baptism  was  a  purgativf^' 
"from  sin.  .Be  it  so^  but  what  has  that  to  do  ^vitli  the  prct  - 
ent  question?  for  let  me  again  repeat  it,  that  ic  ii?  not  ophv- 
ions,  but  the  fact  of  the  baptism  of  infants  that  we  are  in- 
qiiiring  after.  Should  a  Baptist  a  hundred  years  hence  af- 
firm, that  there  were  Baptists,,  and  a  Baptist  church  in  the 
United  States' of  America  in  the  year  18^2,  and  produce 
Mr.  C's  book  as  a  proofs  and  should  a  Pedobaptist  reply, 
that  testimony  is  not  to  be  regarded,  for  the  author  of  that 
book  has  advanced  opinions  that  would  ^  ^dishonour  the  low- 
est grade  of  Christians  amongst  iisj"  he  has  said — ^ 'that  a 
man-is  no  more  blamable  for  not  being  a  Christian,  than 
for  notbelng  seven  feet  high3°'-— ''that  Judaism  was  worse 
than  sheer  Gentilism,-' — and  that  it  is  a  thing  ''full  of 
deadly  poison-' for  the  unregenerate  to  pray  unto  G^od,  or 
to  praise  liim  for  the  mercies  they  have  received  from  his- 
hand. — The  Pedobaptist  v/ould  reason  then,  just  a,s  Mr. 
C  reasons  in  the  present  case;  for  the  existence  of  a  Bap- 
tist church  in  the  present  day  is  no  more  incompatible  w-ith 
his  holding,  and  publishing  the  foregoing  opinions,  wild, 
and  wicked  and  extravagant  as  they  are,  than  the  existence 
of  a  Pedobaptist  church  in  the  four  first  centuries  is  in- 
c:;pmpatible  vv'ith  the  most  extravagant  opinions  wdiich  some 
of  the  Fathers  held,  and  published  during  that  period.  I 
tliink,  you  vnVi  say,  that  never  was  there  a  logician  more 
unhappy  in  the  premises  v^'hence  he  has  drawn  many  ofhi.s 
conclusions,  'nan  is  Mr.  C. 

Bat  in  addi  ion  to  the  testimony  of  Epiphanius  and- 
Xerome  for  the  existence  of  a  Baptist  church  m  this  cen- 
tury, Mr.  C.  tells  us  in  page  51  of  his  Strictures,  that  a 
^ast  number  df  ihe  children  of  believers  were  baptised  in 
this  century;  amongst  whom  he  mentions  Basil  the  great, 
the  son  of  a  Christian  Bishop,  Gregory  the  son  of  Grego- 
ry, Bishop  of'Nazianser,  CoNSTAI^TlNE  the  great,  the  son 
of  Helena  a  zealous  Christian,  Austin  the  son  of  the 
:r;racious  Monica,  and  Theobosius  the  emperor  of  Rome. 
That  this  was  the  case  I  am  not  disposed  to  dispute,, but 
before  these  instances  could  be  of  any  advantage  to  Ms 
system  and  argument,  he  should  have  previously  proved, 
that  the  parents  of  these  children  had  been  Christians  at 
the  time  these  children  were  bora,  and  V/lule  they  v/ere 
Tittle  children;  for  let  it  be  remembered  that  although  the 
I'hristian  reli2:ioii  had  made  considerable  nrofrress  at  tin's 


period,  yet  a  vast  n-jsmber  were  still  in  a  state  of  Geiitil- 
isra.  I  admit  also  that  i infant  baptism  began  to  be  dispu- 
ted by  a  few  at  tins  time,  but  not  to  the  extent  claimed  by 
Mr.  C.  I  adinit  farther  that  baptism  by  immersion  was 
pretty  prevalent  and  increased  every  day,  as  the  writings 
of  Tertuliian  and  Origen  were  spread,  and  their  opinions 
imbibed  5  but  I  have  proved  by  undoubted  testir.iony  that 
infant  baptism  was  the  prevalent  practice  of  the  church. 

I  deem  it  i^nnecessary  to  pursue  this  inquiry  any  far- 
ther, as  the  testimony  which  Mr.  C.  adduces  for  tlie  ex- 
istence of,  a  Baptist  church  in  the  following  centuries',  is 
the  same  which  he  has  adduced  for  that  purpose  for  the 
foregoing  centuries,  and  which  I  have  frequently  observed 
has  not  the  least  bearing  on  the  point  at  issuej  as  it  is  a 
principle  common  to  both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptls'ts,  that 
unbaptized  adults  should  profess  faith  in  Christ  before  they 
can  be  baptized.  Besides,  after  this  century  the  church 
became  more  and  more  con-upted,  until  the  once  simple 
and  chaste  spouse  of  Clidst  became  decked  with  all  the 
trappings  of  a  loathsome  liarlot,  nor  was  she  stripped  of 
Ihem,  until  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Johnt  Knox,  on  whom 
Mr.  C.  has  pous-ed  such  a  torrent  of  abuse,  arose,  and  un- 
veiled her  aoominations  at  the  era  of  the  reformation.  I 
v/ould  however  just  observe  tliat  in  the 

Fifth  Cenfiiri/i  we  have  undoubted  evidence  that  infant 
baptism  was  generally  practised  in  the  church,  although 
immersion  with  all  its  worthy  concomitants  already  men- 
tioned, had  in  a  great  dsp;ree'usurped  the  place  of  the  sim- 
ple and  unassuming  mode  of  al^'usion.  Besides  the  testimo- 
ny of  Augustine,  who  tlourished  in  the  beginning  of  Oils 
century,  Pela-gius  tlie  founder  of  the  heresy  kno7/a  by 
his  name,  in  his  creed  which  he  addressed  to  Ljnocent 
bishop  of  Ro-ne,  avov/s  tli«e  following  articles— '-We  hold 
one  baptism  w'lich  we  say  ought  to  be  administered  v/ith 
the  same  sacramental  W^yr'ds  to  Infanfs,  as  it  is  to  elder  per- 
sons." To  this  he  addfi,  "men  slander  me  as  if  1  denied 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  ^in/ants,  or  did  promise  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  some  persons  without  the  redemption 
of  Christ,  which  is  a  thingtha  1 1  never  heard,  ??09?20^  even  any 
wicked  heretic  scy."  In  412,  his  co^heresiarch  Ce;.esti- 
us  stood  his  trial  before  the  council  cf  Carthage,  and 
amongst  other  things  he  said,  ''as  for  infants  I  always 
said,  that  they  stood  in  need  of  baptism,  and  that  they 


i9i 

ought  to  be  baptized-' — ^^and  infants  are  to  be  baptized, 
according  to  the  rule  of  ike  iiniverscd  church.^'' 

Thus  have  I  shewn  tiiat  infant  baptism  was  practised 
not  onlj^  by  the  apostles,  but  bj  the  prinntive  fathers  down 
to  the  sixth  centiirv,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  indivi- 
duals at  farthest,  who  liad  been  led  by  the  w^ritings  of 
Tertuliian  and  Origeii  to  disuse  it,  and  to  substitute  im- 
mersion in  the  place  of  aSasion.  Mr.  C.  who  attempts 
contrary  to  the  very  data  which  he  lays  down,  to  prove 
that  it  was  introduced  in  the  third  century,  attempts  in  p. 
IS^  of  his  book,  to  account  for  the  stronghold  which  it 
still  maintained  in  the  churcirvbysayingj  *^that  it  is  not  at 
all  a  marvellous  thing  that  Pel agius  and  others  in  the  4th 
(5th)  century  should  say  they  never  heard  that  baptism 
was  denied  to  infants,''  because  the  art  of  printing  w-as  not 
then  known,  and  knowledge  was  connned  to  a  fev/  manu- 
scripts." But  Mr.  C.  did  not  recollect,  or  did  not  choose 
to  recollect,  thatPeb-'v?  tho^iiL:h  a  native  of  Britain,  was 
a  great  traveller— -th;.    '  ilkd  t'lroiigii  France,  Italy, 

Africa  and  Asia,  or  ;.  ,  ^^  ,:art3  of  the  latter  countries 
where  the  Christian  religicn  was  rec3ived,^  and  was  con- 
sequently well  acquainted jwith  the  practice  of  the  church 
in  all  those  countries,  as  it  respected  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants. And  here  let  me  again  observe,  that  the  present 
inquiry  is  not,  what  did  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertul- 
iian, Origen,  Jerorrxe,  Augustine,  Celestius,  and  Pelagius, 
believe  and  teach,  but  Vi  hat  do  they  tell  us  respecting  this 
point,  from  their  own  knowledge  and  practice.  Let  not 
the  reader  suifer  his  mind  to  be  diverted  frjrn  tliis  point, 
for  that,  and  that  alone,  is  the  point  at  issue  at  present 
betwixt  "Mr.  C.  ?.ncl  myself. 

As  this  letter  has  swelled  far  beyond  my  design  and 
expectation,  I  sh.all  conclude  this  inquiry  v/ith'an  extract 
from  Dr.  Wall's  history  of  infant  baptism,  w-ho,  although 
partial  to  dipping,  concludes  his  history  thus:— -"Las dy, 
for  the  first  four  hundred  years  there  appears  only  one 
man,  Tertullian,  who  advises  the  delay  of  infant  baptisra 
in ,some  cases,  and  one  Gtregory  who  did  perhaps  prac- 
tice such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  own  children  j  but  no  so- 
defy  of  m.en  so  thinking,  or  so  practising,  or  any  one  man 
saying  that  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize  infants.  So  in  the 
next  seven  hundred  years,  there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man 
to  be  found,  w  ho  either  spoke  for,  or  practised  such  delay, 
but  all  the  contrary.  And  wiien  a.bout  the  year  1130,  one 


192 

5e>:'c  amon^o;  the  Walbenses  or  ALBicExsr^r.  declared 
against  the  baptism  ef  infants  as  being  incapa^e  of  salva- 
tion, tiie  main  body  of  that  people  rejected  their  opinion, 
and  thev  of  them  that  held  that  opinion,  quickly  dwindled 
a.\va.j  and  disappeared,  there  being  no  more  persons  hold- 
ing that  tenet,  until  the  rising  of  the  German  Anaba^'TISTs 
in  the  year  1522.'' 

Sudi  is  the  result  of  the  researches  of  the  man  who  made 
t.iie  study  of  the  history  of  the  Clw'istian  church  the  main 
business  of  his  life;  and  respecting  ^vhose  history,  Mr. 
Whistox  a  learned  Baptist  tells  his  friends,  "that  Dr. 
Wall's  history  of  infant  baptism,  aa  to  facts,  appeared  to 
him  most  accurately  done,  and  might  be  depended  upon  by 
the  Baptists  themselves:'^  and  such  you  will  have  perceiv- 
ed are  the  progenitors  of  our  modern  Baptists,  one  of  their 
cv;n  learned  friends  beiiifr  judge.  You  will  liave  also  per- 
ceived, tliat  the  assertions  of  Mr.  C.  in  various  places  of  his 
'•Strictures, "  tliat  the  V/aldenses  were  Baptists,  arc 
without  any  solid  foundation,  and  that  the  authorities  he 
lias  quDted^  for  the  support  of  those  assertions,  are  either 
spurious,  and  if  not  spurious,  were  ignorant  men  tainted 
\vith  the  heresies  of  the  day  in  which  they  lived. " 

*Thcre  lias  not  been  an  error,  or  innovation  of  any  magnitude 
introduced  into  tlie  churcli,  but  have  been  transmitted  to  us  by 
ecclesiastical  historians.  Ihcy  have  been  also  careful  to  mention 
pjjticularly,  tlie  person,  or  persons  from  whom  these  errors  orin- 
novatior.s  sprung-^  the  tiniC  they  appeared,  and  the  interest  which 
they  excited  at  the  time.  If  infant  baptism  is  not  of  apostolicai 
authority,  it  must  certainly  have  excited  great  interest  in  the  church 
at  the  tune  it  was  introduced,  and  must  have  been  strenuously  op- 
posed by  all  the  lovers  of  evanp;elical  tmth  and  punty.  And  not 
only  must  this  have  been  the  case,  but  they  wouhl  have  distinctly 
mentioned  the  time  when  this  great  innovation  appeared,  the  per- 
sons by  v/liora  it  wa:;  introduced,  the  interest  wliich  it  excited,  and 
the  effects  which  it  produced  on  tiie  church.  But  there  is  notli- 
ing  of  all  this  in  any  of  the  records  of  the  church.  Augcstixk 
Vvdio  flourished  and  wrote  in  the  4th  century,  mentions  88  differ- 
ent sects  that  had  been,  or  were  tlien  in  the  church.  He  mentions 
also  the  different  tenets  of  those  sects;  but  not  one  wordof  Pedo- 
baptists,  or  those  who  introduced  the  baptism  of  infants.  On  the 
contrary,  as  I  have  shev.'u,  lie  expressly  declares  that  it  was'of 
apostolical  authority.  The  sing-le  circumstance  of  tlie  silence  of 
all  antiquity  on  the  point,  would  of  itself  be  one  of  the  stroTigest 
presumptive  arguments  that  it  v/as  of  apostolical  institution,  had 
there  not  been  a  single  record  on  the  subject.  But  I  have  shewn,, 
that  we  have  record  upon  record,  and  of  such  a  clear  and  une- 
quivocal  character,  as  nmst  Ithinl 
enquirei*  aff^-r  the  truth  in  the  ca=e. 


193 

1  shall  close  my  observations  on  Mr.  C's  Strictures  by 
again  taking  the  liberty  of  holding  a  little  familiar  conver- 
sation with  him,  perhaps  for  the  last  time.  And  now  sir, 
after  reading  tiiis  and  the  preceding  letter,  are  you  not 
convinced  that  you  are  unacquainted  with  the  subject  on 
vvhich  you  have  so  boldly  disputed,  and  as  boldly  written? 
What  else  could  have  induced  you  to  assert  so  often  as 
you  have  done,  that  baptizo  is  used  by  Greek  writers  to 
signify  to  wasli  by  immersion,  and  by  immersion  only— 
that  Pedobaptist  writers  understand  it  in  this  sense,  and 
this  sense  only;  and  above  all,  that  it  is  never  used  in  the 
New  Testament  in  any  other  sense?  .You  must  have  a 
very  bad  opinion  of  all  Pedobaptists  when  you  assert  indi- 
rectly, as  you  do,  that  they  practice  contrary  to  their  fall 
conviction^  and  settled  belief  on  this  point.  And  what 
else  than  ignorance  of  the  subject  could  induce  you  to 
suppose  for  a  moment,  that  even  ten  thousand  quotations 
from  the  ancient  fathers,  or  any  other  vrriters,  respecting 
the  character  and  qualifications  of  those  adult  Jews  or 
Gentiles  whom  they  admitted  to  baptism,  or  who  were  bap- 
tized, was  a  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  Baptist  church  in 
,  their  day,  or  even  the  shadow  of  an  argument  against  the 
baptism  of  infants,  or  against  the  Pedobaptist  system?  You 
cannot  but  now  see,  that  the  task  I  have  set  you  of  proving 
•*by  positive  preceptor  precedent,"  that  the  apostles  bap- 
tized by  immersion,  and  by  immersion  only;  and  of  tra- 
cing an  unbroken  chain  of  Baptist  churches  from  their 
time  to  the  present  day,  is  so  far  from  being  finished,  that 
it  is  not  even  begun;  and  tliat  your  position  in  your  new 
Catechism,  *'*that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism,"  is  un- 
scriptural  and  indefensible.  It  is  v/hatno  man  can  prove, 
for  1  have  proved  the  reverse,  and  by  your  own  testimony. 

That  you  will  reply  to  this  examination  of  your  Stric- 
hcres  is  not  improbable,  for  you  have  given  the  public  the 
fullest  evidence  that  you  are  seized  v/ith  what  a  Roman 
satyrist  styles  '^cacoethes  scribendi,^^  and  which  I  have 
•somewhere  seen  not  improperly  rendered,  '-//le  ifch  of 
scribbling. "^^  I  shall  conclude  this  address  to  you,  by 
•again  observing,  that  should  I  answer,  it  will  be  on  the 
following  conditions,  and  on  the  following  conditions 
only.  1st,  that  you  take  up,  an<d  discuss,  one  by  one, 
the  arguments  contained  in  my  first  letter,  for  the  exist- 
ence of  a  church  of  God — a  church  in  the  fullest  sen?*. 
18  *  ' 


194 

of  the  word,  both  under  the  Patriarchal,  and  Abrahamic 
dispensations  of  grace;  and  that  the  Christian  church  was 
ingrafted  into  the  latter,  as  deduced  from  the  11th  chap- 
ter of  the  epistle  to  the  Rdmans,  and  2d  chapter  of  the  epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians.  This  was  tracing  the  subject  to  its 
first  principles;  but  you  know  that  you  have  shunned  this 
point— you  have  not  once  referred  to  it,  except  by  a  ti'ifling 
objection  deduced  from  my  words  disingenuously  separa- 
ted from  each  other,  and  tlien  distorted  from  their  obvious 
meaning.  2dly;  that  you  discuss  in  the  same  manner,  and 
refute  if  you  can,  my  arguments  for  infant  baptism,  dedu- 
ced from  Acts  2:  38,  39,  in  that  letter,  and  from  Mat.  28: 
19.  1  Cor.  7:  14;  and  especially  from  the  family  baptisms 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  as  exhibited  in^the  2d  let- 
ter. The  latter  of  these  arguments  you  have  not  indeed 
seen  until  now,  but  the  former  you  have  seen,  and  instead 
of  meeting,  and  discussing  it  fairly,  you  have  tried  to  di- 
vert the  minds  of  your  readers  from  it,  by  asking  a  few  im- 
material, and  in  some  instances  irrelevant  questions.  I 
think  I  may  say,  that  I  have  not  shunned  any  thing  like 
argument  in  your  Book  and  Strictures  that  pertained  to 
the  subject  in  dispute;  but  met,  and  answered  them  as  I 
could,  and  as  I  thought  they  deserved.  3dly,  that  you  ex-' 
amine  in  the  same  manner  also,  the  arguments  in  the  3d 
letter,  respecting  the  qualifications  required  from  those 
persons  who  were  baptized  by  the  apostles  themselves. 
You  are  conscious  that  the  view  which  I  have  given  of  that 
pai't  of  the  subject  strikes  at  the  very  vitals  of  your  system, 
and  yet  you  shunned  this  also,  by  referring  to  it  in  a  very 
indeterminate  manner.  It  cannot  Sir,  satisfy  an  inquisi- 
tive public  to  say,  as  you  have  sai-d,  that  it'is  too  absurd 
for  your  notice,  for  it  will  occur  to  every  reader,  that  the 
absurder  it  is,  the  easier  will  be  tbe  refutation,  and  the 
more  signal  your  triumph,  and  the  more  complete  my  de- 
feat. 4thiy,  that  you  examine  also  in  detail  the  baptisms 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  and  shew  that  they  must 
have  been  administered  by  immersion,  and  by  immersion 
only;  and  refute,  if  you  can,  the  reasons  which  I  have  of- 
fered in  the  4th  letter,  wliy  I  tliink  they  were  administered 
by  afiusion,  together  with  v/hat  I  have  added  on  that  point 
in  the  7th  letter.  The  foregoing  conditions  are  neither 
unfair,  nor  unreasonal^e,  and  what  i  have  a  right  to  claim 
from  you  as  tlie  assailant  in  this  controversy;  from  tliehigh 
ground  you  have  assumed;  and  above  all,  in  defence  of  your 


195 

system.  Volumes  of  general  and  desultory  observ'lfiotis 
can  never  profit  the  reader,  nor  bring  the  controversy  to  an 
issue,  and  still  much  less,  treating  the  sacred  and  impor- 
tant subject  v\  itk  an  air  of  ridicule.  And  here  Sir,  permit 
me  to  observe  to  you,  that  you  should. forever  abandon  this 
last  mode  of  writing;  for  whatever  you  call  your  '-GExiua" 
is,  every  reader  of  taste  and  discernment  must  have  seen, 
that  it  does  not  possess  a  single  particle  of  the  '•'sal  atti^ 
cum, "  or  the  true  attic  satire.  I  w  ill  not  disgrace  my  page 
by  writing  the  true  name,  of  what  you  have  mistaken  for 
t)  <at  delicate,  pungent,  pleasing,  and  when  properly  appli- 
ed, useful  style  of  writing.  In  the  event  of  your  com- 
plying with  the  preceding  conditions,  I  here  ag'ain  pledge 
myself,  that  if  I  cannot  answer  you,  I  will  publicly  ac- 
knowledge my  error,  and  thank  you  for  directing  me  into^ 
the  path  of  truth.  But  if  you  refuse  these  reasonable  con- 
ditions, an  intelligent  and  unprejudiced  public  will  cer- 
taiiuy  excuse  me,  for  not  taking  the  least  notice  of  what 
you  may  publish  on  this  subject — I  w'ill  not  carry  on  a 
war  of  words.  Your  friend  Philalethes  now  claims  my 
attention,  and  as  he  has  in  some  places  of  his  letter  to  you, 
addressed  me  directly,  I  shall  address  him  directly  also^ 
as  the  most  expeditious  way  of  bringing  this  letter  to  a 
:los-ec  ^' 


TO  FHEEiAlgBTHBS. 

WHO  you  are  Sir.  I  do  not  know  with  absolute  cer- 
taintv,  nor  is  it  material  5  but  there  is  intrinsic  evidence  in 
jour  letter  that  you  have  been  habituated  to  the  peculiar 
dialect  of  tlie  Scotch  theoldp;y — that  you  live  at  no  great 
distance,  and  have  been  hovering  round  my  congregations^ 
and  picking  up  on  hearsay,  scraps  of  my  sermons,  and 
>vhich  you  unblii shingly  publish  to  the  world  as  credible 
facts — and  that  you  are  very  angry  with  me — as  angry,  as 
1  have  seen  a  doating  father,  when  a  beloved  and  hopeful 
son,  happened  to  be  discomfited  and  exposed.  But  pas- 
sing this  by:  I  would  observe  that  my  address  to  you  vvill 
be  short,  as  there  is  scarcely  any  thing  in  your  letter,  but 
what  Mr.  C.  has  urged  either  in  his  book  or  in  his  "Stric- 
tures;*' and  what  I  have  said  in  reply  to  hirn  on  those  dif- 
ferent points,  you  are  to  consider  as  addressed  to  your- 
self individually.  There  are  hov/ever  a  fev/  things  in  your 
letter  respecting  'Hhe  review,-'  which  he  has  not  noticed, 
and  on  these  you  will  permit  me  to  make  a  few  observations.. 
You  complain  in  p.  66,  that  I  kave  used,  ''harsh,  ill- 
natured,  contemptuous,  and  reproachful  language."  I 
think  not  Sir,  (unless  calling  opinions  by  trieir  true  names, 
is  reproach)  and  I  also  think,  tliat  for  reasons  which  you 
very  well  know,  you  would  not  be  allowed  to  be  a  dispas- 
sionate judge.  I  have  indeed,  used  language  somewhat 
strong,  and  v/fiich  I  thought  iha  occasion  demanded,  when, 
Mr.  C.  advanced  positions,  in  defence  cf  his  system, 
which  degraded  the  Old  Testament  scriptures,  and  are 
^^reproachfiiP^  to  Jehovah  as  the  author  of  Judaism:  and 
v.hen  he  represented  the  Pedobaptist  clergy  without  ex- 
ception as  venal  and  corrupt,  and  for  sinister  purposes, 
'Haking  away  the  key  of  knowledge  from  the  laity,"  and 
in  which  you  have  joined  him  by  saying  (p.  70,)  that  they 
admit  into  the  church,  "those  only  who  pay  stipends;" 
but  I  think  that  I  have  not  used  a  word  that  is  either  inde- 
corous, or  scurrilous.  If  I  have,  I  will  not  justifv  it,  and 
so  far  I  have  injured  myself,  and  not  Mr.  C :  and  be  that 
as  it  may.  such  a  charge  comes  with  a  very  bad  <>;race  fi-om 
you,  and  your  jnenci. 


i9r 

You  complairi  also,  that  the  "review"  was  not  an  au= 
swer  to  Mr.  C's  book^ — that  I  was  afraid  that  it  should 
be  seen,  and  therefore  "huddled  it  up  in  a  miscellaneous 
periodical  publication. "  That  complaint  is  now  removed, 
and  the  present  publication  embraces  every  thing  that  I 
consider  relevant  to  the  question  in  his  book;  but  v/hether 
my  answer  is  to  the  point,  is  another  question; — but  of  that 
the  unprejudiced  public  will  judge. 

In  p.  67,  you  affirm  that  I  have  not  produced  any  proof 
that  a  Redeemer  of  the  seed  of  iVbraham,  and  a  church,  and 
her  ordinances,  were  secured  by  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision; and  in  the  following  page,  "that  from  the  beginning 
of  the  15th  chapter  of  Genesis,  to  the  end  of  Deuteronomy, 
tliere  is  not  a  promise  of  regeneration,  and  eternal  life, 
made  to  the  covenanted  seed  of  Abraham  as  such. "  I 
have  assigned  reasons  in  tlie  first  letter,  why  I  consider 
what  is  called  "tVie  covenant  of  God  in  Christ,"  and  "the 
covenant  of  circumcision,"  to  be  one  and  the  same  cove- 
nant. If  you  could  have  done  so,  it  behooved  you,  or 
Mr.  C.  to  have  shewn  that  I  was  mistaken;  but  you  have 
both  avoided  this.  I  quoted  the  words  in  that  covenant, 
"In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed"  as  expressly  applied 
to  Christ,  in  Gal.  3:  16 — "And  to  thy  seed  which  is 
Christ;"  notwithstanding  which,  you  assert  that  that  cov- 
enant only  secured,  "that  nations  and  kings  should  pro- 
ceed from  Abraham. "  Now,  vSir,  besides  being  contradic- 
tory to  the  exposition  given  to  the  words  by  the  apostle, 
is  not  your  exposition  false  in  fact.^  Have  all  nations  and 
all  kings  descended  from  Abraham?  but  this  according  to 
your  exposition,  must  have  been  the  case,  or  the  promise 
was  false;  for  the  promise  is, — "In  thee  shall  all  nations 
be  blessed,"  and  expressed  in  Gen.  12:  3,  "In  thee  shall 
all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Nor  is  it  true  that 
this  promise  did  not  belong  to  that  covenant,  as  you  boldly 
assert  in  the  same  page,  for  the  apostle  in  the  same  chap- 
ter, and  17th  verse,  styles  it  "the  covenant  confirmed  of 
God  in  Christ,"  or  as  it  respected  Christ.  I  would  also 
ask  you,  whether  it  is  a  temporal  or  spiritual  blessing  that 
is  promised  to  the  "covenanted  seed  of  x\braham  as  such," 
in  Deut.  30:  6 — "And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise 
thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thine  seed,  to  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  hearty  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou 
mayest  live. "  The  very  phraseology  used  in  this  promise 
*18  ' 


198   ^ 

IS  a  proof  that  the  blessirxg  conferred  on  tl)e  Jews  was  it. 
consequence  of  their  ocing  within  the  pale  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcision;  for  surely  the  word  '^circiwidse,^^  \vhich 
according  to  your  system  conveys  the  idea  of  temporal  bles- 
sings onij,  would  not  have  been  used  to  denote  such  a 
blessing,  as  to  dispose  them  ''to  love  the  Lord  their  God, 
with  all  their  heart,  and  with  ail  their  soul,  if  spiritual 
blessings  had  not  been  intended.  And  not  only  is  tiiis  the 
case,  but  the  word  also  cle?a-lj  imports-,  that  circumcision 
was  designed  as  a  mean  througli  which  tliis  blessing  w^as 
conveyed  to  those,  whom  Jehovah  designed  thus  highly  to 
distinguish.  In  p.  TT,  of  his  book,  your  friend  Mr.  C. 
denies  that  the  phrase  '*^o  circumcise'''  the  heart  can  in  the 
utmost  latitude  of  interpretation  imply  all  the  blessings  of 
the  nev/  covenant^"  and  that  this  promise  could  not  be 
given  to  the  Jews  as  the  covenanted  seed  of  Abraham, 
♦^because  it  related  to  events  then  future,  from  the  daysol 
Mcses."  I  shall  only  say,  that  if  that  promise  does  not  im- 
ply in  it  all  the  blessings  of  tlie  new  covenant,  then  there  is 
no  promise  in  all  the  book  of  God  that  does  so.  Love  to 
God  when  supreme  holds  the  first  rank  amongst  '*the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,"  Gal.  5:  22;  and  that  faith  with  which, 
i^alvation  or  eternal  life  is  connected  by  .the  promise  of 
Christ  himself,  is  said  *'to  work  by  love^^^  *'and  to  purify 
the  heai-t.-'  Mr.  C's  objection  that  the  promise  now  un- 
der consideration  "related  to  events,  then  future,"  like 
many  others  of  his  objections,  and  positions,  is  truly  silly; 
for  is  not  the  accomplishment  of  a  promise,  necessarily 
future  to  the  promise  itself? 

In  p.  69  you' assert,  that  if  baptizo  does  not  signify  to 
immerse,  "then  the  grand  use  of  language  as  a  medium  of 
communication  betv/ixt  heaven  and  earrh  is  nvade  void, 
arid  the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  worshipper  is  rendered 
impossible."  This  objection  is  founded  on  the  assumption, 
and  principle,  that  as  immersion  is  the  primary  idea  affix- 
ed to  the  verb  baptizo^  by  heathen  writers,  itis  therefore 
to  be  so  understood  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  sacred  wri- 
tings. I  have  shewn  that  the  words  faith^  repentance, 
salvation,  &c.  are  used  sometimes  in  their  primary,  and 
sometimes  in  their  secondary  sense  in  the  scriptures;  and 
is  ''the  communication  betwixt  heaven  and  earthy  thereby 
made  void:  and  is  tiie  faith  and  obedience  of  the  v/orship- 
per,  thereby  rendered  impossible?"  Apply  your  rule.  Sir, 
made  and  provided  for  the  word  baptizo,  to  those  and  many 


i99 

Other  worcis.  of  always  understanding  them  in  their  prima = 
ry  sense  wherever  they  occurs  and  then  saj,  if  ^•the  faith 
-and  obedipnce  of  the  worshipper  would  not^ereby  be 
rendered  impossible,"  and  if  your  rule  woifl'd  not  reduce 
the  Bible  to  a  mass  of  unintelligible  jargon. 

Your  criticism  on  the  words,  ^=v>f  such,*'  in  Luke  18:  16, 
is  of  no  use  to  your  system^  for  it  is  undeniable  that  Christ 
liad  reference  to  the  very  children  he  held  in  his  armsj  and 
no  phraseology  is  more  frequent  in  common  language  tor 
denote  persons,  or  personality^  and  a  single  exception  can- 
not set  aside  a  general  rule. 

Your  story,  '-that  I  have,,  not  very  long  since,  openly 
declared  from  the  pulpit,  that  according  to  the  meaning 
the  Baptists  affix  to  Acts  8:  39,  I  could  not  tell  whether 
Philip  baptized  the  eunuch,  or  the  eunuch  him,"  is  unwor- 
thy of  any  man  who  has  a  respect  for  his  character  as  a 
writer^  and  shews  that  you  cannot  defend  your  system  by 
fair  and  honourable  argument  No  preacher  can  recollect 
all  he  has  said  in  the  pulpit,  but  I  am  persuaded,  that  I 
have  never  used  the  identical  words  which  you  have  pub- 
lished as  mine.  But  I  have  said,  that  as  Baptists  under- 
stand the  words,  'Hhei/  went  down  into  the  water^'^  as  sig- 
nifying immersion;  it  will  follow,  that  Philip  v/as  immersed 
as  well  as  the  eunuch,  for  it  is  said,  *^*that  they  wentdoiim 
into  the  water,  both  Philip,  and  the  eunuch."  I  have  said 
so  in  the  fourth  letter,  when  examining  that  baptism.  Both 
you  and  Mr.  C.  have  seen  this,  and  instead  of  shewing  that 
my  inference  was  wrong,  both  of  you  pass  it  by,  and  as 
an  answer  you  unbiushingly  publish  to  the  world  a«  a 
credible  fact,  Vvhat  you  have  heard  from  some  person  or 
other.  Was  not  this  one  reason  why  you  have  not  given 
the  public,  and  myself  your  name:  and  I  would  novv^  ask 
you,  if  that  cause  is  not  desperate,  and  if  it  is  worth  defen- 
ding, when  its  advocates  must  resort  to  such  shameful 
means  to  support  it? 

In  page  70,  you  object  to  my  saying,  "that  the  passo- 
ver  was  not  only  commemorative  of  the  deliverance  of  the 
children  of  Israel  from  Egyptian  bondage,  but  of  a  far 
greater  deliverance,  the  deliverance  of  guilty  sinners,  by 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God. " — I  need  not  tell  you.  Sir, 
that  you  have  disingenuously  garbled  the  passage  which 
you  have  quoted  from  the  first. letter,  and  the  apparent  in- 
accuracy of  expression  would  have  disappeared  had  you 
stated  the  whole.     But  admitting  an  inaccuracy  in  the 


^00 

expression,  I  contend  that  there  is  none  in  the  sentiinentf 
for  Chria*:  is  styled  "the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  v/oii^','  In  the  passage  you  have  quoted,  I  produ- 
ced 1  Cor.  5:  7,  "eTen  Chrht  our  pas sover  is  sacrificed 
for  us,"  as  a  proof  that  the  passover  was  typical  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  supper,  and  that  t'lo  latter  has  taken  the 
place  of  the  former  in  the  churchy  and  I  observed  in  the 
fourth  letter,  '-that  the  intelligent  adult  saw  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  passover  the  deliverance  of  guilty  men,  by 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God."  Both  you,  and  Mr.  C. 
have  seen  this^  why  did  you  not  shew,  if  you  could,  that 
my  interpretation  was  wrong?  But  you  have  both  avoided 
ihisj  and  you  have  contented  yourself  with  a  meagre  cri- 
ticism, on  what  you  supposed  to  be  an  inaccurate  expres- 
sion. You  must  allow  me  to  tell  you,  that  you  were  both 
afraid  to  touch  that  point,  and  to  examine  that  passage. 

I  shall  pass  over  your  charges  in  this  and  the  following 
page  J  as  they  contain  nothing  but  empty  declamation 
against  creeds,  and  confessions,  and  the  venality  and  cor- 
ruption of  the  Pedobaptist  clergy;  with  this  single  obser- 
vation— that  you  have  your  creed,  and  confession,  and  the 
present  question  is  concerning  baptism,  and  not,  what 
creeds  and  confessions  are  agreeable,  or  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God. 

In  my  tlurd  letter  I  produced  the  lith  chapter  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  a  proof  that  a  church  of  God  ex- 
isted in  the  Jewish  nation.  I  observed  that  according  to 
my  view  of  that  cliapter,  the  apostle  compares  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision,  on  v.'hich  that  church  was  founded, 
to  a  good  olive-tree: — Abraham,  v/ith  whom  that  covenant 
v/as  first  made,  to  its  "roo/" — the  Jews  to  its  ^'■b ranches ^^^ 
and  the  provisions  of  that  covenant  to  its  ''•fatness^^ — that 
the  Jews,  v/itli  the  exception  of  a  remnant,  were  broken  off 
from  that  good  olive-tree,  by  their  rejecting  Christ,  and 
that  the  Gentiles  by  believing  in  him  were  grafted  in,  in 
their  stead,  and  nov/  partake  of  its  "root  and  fatness." 

Instead  of  meeting  and  discussing  this  argument  in  a 
fair  and  becoming  manner,  you  try  to  turn  it  into  ridicule, 
by  telling  ns,  "that  you  have  heard  of  a  change  of  dispen- 
sations, but  not  of  one  dispensation  being  grafted  into  an- 
other," "and  that  no  person  ever  heard  of  a  man  being 
called  the  root  of  a  covenant. "  If  there  is  any  thing  ridi- 
culous in  the  metaphors  of  that  allegory,  the  apostle  Paul 
must  answer  for  it,  for  it  is  undeniable  that  he  speaks  of 


201 

he  Jewish  nation,  and  it  is  undeniable  that  they  elescend- 
ed  from  Abraham.  This  your  friend  Mr.  C.  admits^  but 
I  have  shewn  that  his  interpretation  of  that  allegory  is  not 
only  absurd,  but  self-contradictory.  •  Why  did  you  not 
either  attempt  to  defend  your  friend^s  interpretation,  or 
give  us  one  of  your  ov/n,  not  liable  to  such  objections. 
You  have  avoided  this  and  you  try  to  diveit  the  minds  of 
jour  friends  and  the  public  tVom  the  interpretation  I  have 
given,  by  directing  a  few  pointless  shafts  of  insipid  ridicule 
against  it.  And  pray,  Sir,  what  is  there  ridiculous  or  im- 
proper in  a  man's  being  styled  the  root  of  a  covenant? 
You  v/ill  admit,  I  expect,  that  the  covenant,  usually  sty- 
led the  covenant  of  works,  v»as  not  made  with  Adam  him- 
self only,  but  as  the  root  of  his  posterity;  and  although  I 
do  not  recollect  that  he  is  styled  the  root  of  that  covenant 
in  the  scriptures,  yet  there  is  scarcely  a  systematic  divine, 
who  has  not  used  the  metaphor  in  relation  to  Adam.  In 
John  15:  1,  Christ  calls  himself  "the  true  vine,''  and 
<'his  father  the  husbandman.-'  If  the  inspired  .penmen 
had  not  used  these  expressions,  I  suppose  you  would 
have  denied  that  they  referred  to  Christ  and  his  Fa- 
ther, because  they  were  in  your  opinion  improper  me- 
taphors. In  Rom.  4:  11,  Abraham  is  styled  ^-the  father 
of  all  them  that  believe^"  and  I  v;ould  now  ask  you, 
is  not  this  metaphorical  language,  according  to  your 
ideas  of  what  constitutes  a  proper  metaphor,  as  ridiculous 
as  the  one  against  which  you  have  objected;  and  do  not 
forget,  Sir,  that  the  metaphor  is  not  mine,  nor  the  tree 
MINE,  but  the  apostle  Paul's.  With  respect  to  your  ob- 
jection, that  one  dispensation  cannot  be  ingrafted  into 
another,  I  will  only  observe,  that  it  will  be  admitted,  that 
the  Jews  when  converted  to  the  Christian  faith,  will  form 
a  partj  and  a  very  distinguished  part  of  the  Christian 
church,  or  Christian  dispensation  of  grace.  Now,  Sir, 
read  the  23d  and  24th  verses  of  this  llth  chapter,  and 
blush  for  your  ignorance  of  the  subject  on  Vvhich  you  have 
w  ritten,  and  what  is  more,  for  your  ignorance  of  the  sa- 
cred Scriptures,  for  there  is  intrinsic  evidence  in  your  let- 
ter, that  you  are  a  preacher.  -Speaking  of  the  restoration 
of  that  people,  the  apostle  says;  "and  they  also  if  they 
abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  ^ruffed  in:  for  God  is 
able  to  grcfffli'nem  in  again."  And  then  addressing  the 
Gentile  converts,  he  adds;  "For  If  thou  wert  cut  out  of 
the  olive-tree  wliich  i-  wild  by  nature    and  wert  graffkcJ 


£02 

contrary  to  nature  into  a  good  olive  tree,  how  much  more 
shall  these,  which  be  the  natural  brariches,  be  graffed  into 
their  own  olive-tree.*^  And  nov/,.  Sir,  is  it  possible  for 
language  to  teach  more  clearly  and  fully,  than  the  preced- 
ing verses  do,  that  the  Christian  church  or  dispensation  of 
grace,  is  ingrafted  into  the  Jewish  cliurch  or  dispensation. 
As  this  is  the  pivot  on  wliich  the  whole  controversy  turns, 
I  expected  that  Mr.  C.  or  some  of  his  friends  would  have 
examined  this  point  carefidly  and  minutely.  But  he  has 
prudently  for  himself,  overlooked  it  altogether  in  his 
"strictures:*'  and  the  poor,  and  pithless  manner  in  which 
you,  on  whom  it  seems  he  devolved  the  task,  have  dis- 
charged it,  is  another  proof  that  the  system  which  you 
have  adopted,  is  unscriptural,  and  indefensible. 

Your  comparison  in  p.  74  betwixt  the  Romish  and  Pro- 
testant Pedobaptist  clergy,  is  only  another  proof  that  there 
is  that  in  your  system,  that  generates,  and  fosters  the  hate- 
ful spirit  of  persecution;  for  that  spirit  manifests  itself  as 
unequivocally  in  slanderous  expressions,  and  in  publishing 
slanderous  stories,  as  in  imprisonment,  conSscation  of  pro- 
perty, or  uepi'i'vatioii  of  life.  Your  predecessors  in  Ger- 
many, in  the  l6th  century,  gave  full  evidence  of  this;  and 
if  their  followers  have  not  ran  into  the  same  extremes,  it 
is  because  a  gracious  Providence  has  deprived  them  of  an 
opportunity.  I  am  not  alluding  to  the  Baptist  church  in 
general,  but  to  those  of  them  only,  who  have  imbibed  your, 
and  Mr.  C's  political,  and  theological  principles. 

In  the  same  page,  you  tell  us,  that  the  Westminster  di- 
vines are  inconsistent  with  themselves;  or  that  the  28th 
chapter  of  their  Confession  of  Faith,  and  91st,  92d  and 
94th  answers  in  the  Shorter,  and  i65th  and  iGrth  answers 
in  the  Larger  Catechism,  are  inconsistent  with  infant  bap- 
tism, or  as  you  tv/ice  scoSingly  call  it  ''^infant  sprinkling.'^ 
Why.^ — Because  they  say  that  the  thing  signiiied  by  bap 
tism,  the  washing  of  regeneration,  is  applied  to  believers. 
Admitted — and  what  then? — Does  it  follow,  that  the  sign 
is  not  to  be  applied,  until  the  person  is  possessed  of  the 
thing  signified;  more  especially  if  the  sign  was  appointed 
as-a  mean  through  which  the  thing  signified  is  conveyed. 
This  I  have  shewn  in  the  third  letter  is  the  fact.  You  and 
Mr.  C.  have  read  that  letter,  and  instead  of  meeting  and 
investigating  the  doctrine  exhibited  and  defended  therein, 
you  have  contented  yourselves,  by  endeavoring  to  pour  a 
little  unmeaning  ridicule  upon  it.     That,  it  seemsj  suits 


20-3 

you  both  much  better,  than  sober,  and  seriona  investiga- 
tion.  I  will  just  add,  that  vou  represent  those  divines  as 
saying  what  they  have  not  said,  and  from  which  you  draw 
atf  inference  diametrically  opposite  to  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism  which  they  have  avowed  in  the  most  clear  and 
express  terms-  They  say  that  in  baptism,  "Christ,  and 
the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant,  are  represented,  sealed, 
and  applied  to  believers i^^  but  yon  represent  thein  as  say- 
in<v,  that  tliose  benefits  are  applied  "o/i^/  to  believers." 
This  you  say  excludes  infants  from  baptism  as  they  are 
not  capable  of  believing.  It  would  so,  if  they  had  said  so; 
but  it  is  you,  Sir,  and  not  they  who  have  said  so.  Are 
you  not  ashamed  of  this?  Ai^d  what  am  I,  or  others  to  think 
of  those  men,  and  their  system,  that  requires  such  disinge- 
nuous, yea  dishonest  means  for  its  support? 

You  conclude  the  argumentative  part  of  your  letter,  by 
appealing  "to  the  common  sense,  and  unbiassed  reason  of 
mankind,  if  sprinkling  a  few^  drops  of  water  on  the  face, 
can  in  any  sense  be  called  a  washing;"  "and  if  it  can  be 
said  of  such,  as  in  1  Cor.  6:  11,— "But  ye  are  washed." 
I  answer  No — -if  you  consider,  with  Tertulliax,  with 
whom  I  have  shewn  your  system  began,  that  tliere  is  a  pu- 
rif^dng  efficacy  in  baptismal  water  itself:  and  as  your  ob- 
jection to  have  any  force  imports,  and  as  the  mighty  stress 
which  Baptists  generally  place  on  baptism  by  immersion 
imports  also.  But  as  that  may  not  be  your  opinion,  I  would 
farther  observe,  that  I  agree  with  you,  tliat  the  apostle  re- 
fers to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  in  the  passage  you  have 
quoted;  because  the  word  ''washecV^  is  prefixed  t^,  and 
distinguished  from  the  v/ord  '''sa?ictifiecP' — "but  ye  are 
washed,  but  ye  are.  sanctified;"-^because  the  water  in 
■baptism  signifies,  and  points  out,  the  necessity  of  moral 
purity; — and  because,  as  I  think  I  have  proved,  it  is  one 
of  the  means  by  which  the  Almighty  Spirit  produces  that 
important  w^ork. — But,  Sir,  that  an  application  of  water  to 
a  part  of  the  body  only,  is  a  fit,  and  scriptural  emblem  of 
the  Spirit's  agency  in  producing  that  importa,nt  work,  is  at- 
tested, as  I  have  already  shewn,  not  only  by  the  prophets 
and  apostles,  but  by  Christ  himself.  In^he  ISth  chapter 
of  John,  we  are  told  that  Christ  shortly  before  his  passion, 
poured  water  into  a  basin,  and  began  to  wash  his  disciples 
leet,  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  them  and  us,  that  we  are 
not  to  decline  the  meanest  office,,  when  it  can  benefit  a  fel- 
low Christian,     ^¥hen  he  came  to  Peter  for  the  purpose  of 


204 

washing  his  feet,  Peter  refused  the  kind  o&ce,  doubtless^ 
from  the  consideration  that  such  an  oiiice  was  unbefitting 
•the  Son  of  God,  to  such  an  unworthy  person  as  he  was,  and 
said; — *  'Lord  thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet. "  To  remove 
his  scruples,  Christ  informed  him,  that  besides  the  impor- 
tant  lesson  Avhich  he  taught  by  washing  his  disciple's  feet, 
the  action  itself  was  emblematic  of  the  necessity  of  the 
washing  of  sanctification,.  and  said,  ''if  I  wash  thee  not, 
thou  hast  no  part  with  me."  These  words 'themselvefc, 
and  Peter's  reply  shew,  that  he  understood  the  meaning  of 
the  emblematic  action;  and  being  at  that  time  of  your  opin- 
ion at  present,  that  a  total,  must  be  better,  than  a  partial 
application  of  water  to  the  body,  he  exclaimed,  "Lord  not 
my  feet  only,  but  my  hands  and  my  head."  *'But  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  he  that  is  washed,  needeth  not,  save  to  wash 
his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."  Now,  as  your  friend, 
and  ally  Mr.  C.  has  admitted  in  p.  141,  of  his  book  (for  it 
cannot  be  denied)  that  the  water  in  baptism  is  emblemati- 
cal of  the  Spirit's  agency  on  the  human  heart;  then,  wheth- 
er you  consider  the  action  of  Christ's  wasliing  the  disciple's 
feet,  as  what  is  to  be  imitated  by  his  followers  or  not,  you 
cannot  but  see,  that  Cln-ist  liimself  has  positively  declared, 
iiiat  the  application  of  water  to  a  part  of  the  body  only,  is 
a  fitter  emblem  of  his  Spirit's  purifying  influences,  than 
immersing  the  whole  body  in  that  element;  because,  as  I 
have  repeatedly  shewn,  those  influences,  are  said,  "to  be 
sprinkled  upon,"  and  "poured  out"  upon  us,  but  we  are  nev- 
er saiii  tobe  immersed  in  those  iufluenccs.  You  are  not  how- 
ever to  understand  me  as  adducing  that  transaction  as  a 
pcoofthatbaptismistobe  administered  by  affusion  or  sprin- 
kling the  water  on  the  subject.  That,  I  think,  I  have  proved 
from  other  passages  of  the  divine  records,  but  which  you  and 
Mr.  C .  have  prudently  passed  over.  I  have  adduced  it  only, 
as  another  instance,  tliat  a  partial  application  of  water,  is  a 
more  appropriate  emblem  of  the  Spirit's  purifying  influen- 
ces, than  to  apply  the  water  to  the  whole  body  by  immersion; 
and  as  Christ  himself  has  declared  that  it  is  so,  when  the 
water  is  only  applied  to  the  feet,  I  do  not  know  of  any 
reason  why  it  should  not  be  so,  when  applied  to  the  head 
or  face.  But  this  is  not  all.  As  you  consider  the  word 
^^washecP^  in  1  Cor.  6:  11,  as  having  reference  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  and  in  which  you  are  supported  by  the 
best  commcn-tators;  then  ]tt  me  observe  to  you  further,  that 
the  Greek  v/crd  used  by  the  fspostle  in  that  passage,  is  in 


perfect  accordanci>  v.itli  the  docttiue  v/luch  Christ  has 
taught  in  the  passage  which  I  have  adduced.  It  is  not 
hapli'ZQ^  Sir,  on  which  you  and  other  Baptists  place  so 
much  stress,  but  hno.^  which  signiiies  to  wasli  by  any 
means;  and  this  is  another  proof,  that  immersion  is  not 
necessary  to  constitute  a  valid  baptism.  I  am  persuaded 
that  you  were  not  aware  of  this  circumstance,  or  you  would 
not  have  adduced  that  passage  to  prove  "that  immersion 
is  \}{\Qi  only  baptism;"  and  I  am  sure  that  Mr.  C.  will  not 
thank  you  for  meddling  with  it  at  all. 

I  have  now  finished  my  examination  of  your  letter,  and 
as  tliis  may  be  the  last  opportunity  which  I  may  have  of 
addressing  you  directly,  permit  me.  to  ask  you,  if  you  are 
not  now  convinced,  that  jour  present  creed  is  unscriptural, 
and  indefensible.'^  I  say  your  present  creed,  for  there  is  to 
me,  intrinsic  evidence  in  your  letter,  that  you  have  not 
always  h^ld  it.  It  sits  awkwardly  upon  you;  and  if  it 
v/ould  not  offend  you  too  much,  1  w^ould  say,  that  you  do 
not  understand  it.  But  particularly,  let  me  ask  you 
Vvhence  you  have  imbibed  that  rancorous,  and  persecuting 
spirit,  v/hich  bursts  out  in  almost  every  page  of  your  letter, 
against  the  Pedobaptist  clergy. — -Is  it  the  fruit  of  your 
present  creed? — Is  it  not  then  time  to  renounce  it,  for  you 
cannot  but  be  conscious,  that  it  is  as  opposite  to  the  spiiit 
of  the  Gospel,  as  darkness  is  to  light;  as  "the  wisdom  of 
this  world"  is  to  that  which  "is  pure,  and  peaceable,  and 
gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated.-'  I  do  not  speak  thus, 
on  account  of  that  ridicule  which  you  have  attempted  to 
pour  out  on  myself  individually;  for  I  neither  feel,  nor  have 
felt  it,  nor  has  it,  nor  can  it  injure  me  in  any  manner  what- 
ever: but  I  speak  thus,  because  lam  sorry  to  see  such  tal 
ents,  and  attainments,  as  you  are  possessed  of,  and  vrhicli 
under  a  proper  direction  might  have  been  useful  to  the 
church,  perverted  by  a  system  which  you  do  not  under-" 
stand;  for  it  is  not  the  Baptist  system  as  purged  by  the 
laborious,  and  humble  Menxo,  which  you  and  Mr.  C.  have 
embraced,  but  as  retaining  much  of  the  impurities,  politi- 
cal and  theological,  of  the  impure,  and  ferocious  Anabap- 
tists of  the  1 6th  century.  It  maybe  wortli  your  while  to 
think  seiiously  of  this;  and  may  the  Spirit  of  truth,  and  of 
love,  guide  you,  and  myself,  into  the  paths  of  truth,  and  of 
righteousness.  SAMUEL  RALSTON. 

Mmgo-Creek,  Washiyigton'} 
Cmmfu,Fa.Jlpn(lS23.    S 
19 


LETTER  IX.  ^ 

I  SUPPOSE  that  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe, 
that  Mr.  C.  has  lately  published  the  substance  of  a  second 
debate  on  baptism  between  himself  and  a  Mr.  Macalla,  at 
that  time  of  Kentucky,  and  now  of  Philadelphia.  To  this 
debate  he  has  appended  "animadversions^  on  the  pre- 
ceding letters;  and  as  it  seems,  that  in  the  course  of  the 
debate  Mn  M.  read  extracts  from  those  letters,  Mr.  C. 
informs  his  readers,  *>that  there  is  not  a  single  topic  of 
argument  advanced  by  me  that  is  not  to  be  found  in  that 
volume. "  His  '  'animadversions"  are  cdnfined  to  5  pages, 
and  with  the  exception  of  a  single  attempt  at  argument 
which  shall  be  noticed  in  the  proper  place,  they  are  taken 
up  with  low  wit  not  worth  noticing,  and  the  usual  charge 
of  misrepresentation.  Surely,  there  never  w^as  a  man  more 
unfortunate  in  this  respect,  than  is  my  opponent.  In  p. 
419  he  says  that  Mr.  Fikdley's  letter  annexed  to  Mr. 
Walker- s  account  of  the  debate  at  Mount-Pleasant,  "is 
one  continued  epistle  of  defamation  and  misrepresenta- 
tion." In  p.  4i8  he  tells  us,  that  Mr,  W's  book,  with 
respect  "to  vulgarity  of  abuse,  the  maliciousness  of  the 
insinuations,  the  manifest  disregard  to  truth,  the  unfoun- 
ded assertions,  &:c.  stands  preeminently  distinguished  - 
amongst  the  ephemeral  productions  of  the  day."  And 
not  only  is  this  the  case,  but  he  tells  us  in  the  14th  No.  of 
his  "Christian  Baptist,"  thatMr.  GREVTRAKEa  Baptis^t 
minister,  who  has  lately  addressed  fire  or  six  letters  to  him 
on  the  wildness  of  his  principles,  and  the  extravagance  of 
his  followers,  has  published  "falseliood,  and  calumny — • 
"and  deliberately  written  down  falsehood  against  him." 
As  for  myself  he  says  in  p.  405,  "that  I  am  destitute  ct 
moral  rectitude;"  and  besides  the  great  number  of  misrep- 
resentations in  the  first  series  of  my  letters,  8  of  which  he 
has  only  specified,  I  have  in  the  last  series  misrepresented 
him  in  no  less  than  117  instances;  and  that  of  all  the  first 
host  of  misrepresentations  I  have  succeeded  in  clearing 
myself  of  one  only  by  a  mistake  of  the  printer.* 

•Mr.  C's  firmest  friends. and  admirers  cannot  but  b^  ashamed  of 
tV.is.     For  was  it  not  Mr.  C.  himself,  and  not  the  prij^t'Cr,  who  rr. 


20f 

>^ow,  I  do  protest  against  Mr.  C.  being  my  judge  in 
iliis  ca^.  My  answers  to  those  alledged  misrepresenta- 
tions are  b^pre  the  piiblick,  and  to  them  I  appeal.  With 
respect  to  the  .*<?cond  formidable  host  of  117,  but  wliichhe 
has  not  specified,  Tp*-^  only  excepted,  and  it  is  to  be  suppo- 
sed that  they  are  the  sit^jngest  he  could  muster,  I  appeal 
also  to  thAi  same  tribunal.  Wherever  I  have  combatted 
llis  opinions,  I  ha.ve  quoted  his  words,  and  the  public k  have 
decided,  and  will  decide,  whether  or  no,  the  doctrines  op- 
|>osed  are  contained  in  those  v/ords. 

As  to  the  last  specified  misrepresentations,  he  says  that 
there  are  three  falsehoods  in  the  second  sentence,  of  the 
first  paragraph  of  the  5th  letter.  These  falsehoods,  it 
seems,  are  contained  in  the  fo/lowing  v/ords — * 'After  much 
threatening,  and  a  lapse  and  labour  of  12  months,  Mr.  C, 
has  at  length  published  stsictures  on  three  of  the  forego- 
ing letters,  and  called  to  his  aid  another  writer  with  the 
signature  of  Fhilalethes:  and  he  asks,  "where  was  this 
threatening,  this  labour  of  12  months,  and  where  the  proof 
of  cpJIing  to  his  aid  another  y/riter." 

Now,  one  vv'ould  think  that  a  recollection  of  the  Gascon- 
ading style,  and  bullying  and  threatening  tone  of  his 
Christian  Baptist,  and  Strictures,  would  have  preven- 
ted him  from  preferring  the  first  of  these  charges.  The 
fact  that  it  was  upwards  of  12  months  after  the  appearance 
of  the  1st,  3d,  and  4th  letters  in  the  Presbyterian  Maga- 
zine before  his  'sStrictures"  on  them  appeared,  dissipates 
the  second^  and  the  fact  that  he  published  the  letter  gf 
Philalethes  dissipates  the  third  of  those  formidable  char- 
ges of  falsehood  and  misrepresentation. 

As  an  answer  to  the  fourth  charge,  "that  I  represent  him 
as  saying,  that  I  have  apostrophised  as  much  in  my  letters 
'jis  he  has  done  in  his  book,"  but  which  he  denies  having 

ferred  to  the  page  In  his  own  book.  Bvit  is  it  so,  that  he  refers  to 
p.  158  of  the  second  Edition  of  his  debate  with  Mr.  W.  to  the 
covenanthfctween  God  and  Abraham,  recorded  in  the  15th  chapter 
of  Genesis.  He  does  so — but  not  as  an  answer  to  what  I  have  said 
in  the  first  letter  respecting  that  covenant.  I  referred  to  that  cov- 
enant, as  what,  and  what  alone  Secured  the  land  of  Canaan  to 
Abraham,  and  his  seed;  but  IVIr.  C.  refers  to  it  in  that  page  inre- 
g'ard  to  a  piece  of  chronology  only.  He  cannot  but  have  known 
ihis;  and  I  would  now  ask  the  readel",  and  Mr.  C*s  friends,  what 
v/e  are  to  think  of  the  man  who  attempts  to  palm  such  a  gross 
misrepresentation  on  the  pubhck^  and  at  the  expense  of  the  ve^' 
Mcitv  of  another. 


Lib 


aaid,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  5d,  and  4tli  pages  c^^^^> 
STRICTURES,  and  especiallj  to  the  sentence  begim^^^g  thus 
•—"Having  given  a  few  of  Mr.  R's  apostrophe^,  and  j-ra- 
tuitous  declamations/'  With  respect  to  tae  last  charge^ 
of  my  saying,  "that  Mr.  C.  represents -Jie  as  misrepresen- 
ting him  in  no  less  than  8  ditierepi  instances,  ^yhereas  he 
has  said  that  they  were  only  a  few  of  many;"  I  would  just 
reply  that  he  specified  only  the  8,  and  I  could  not  reply  to 
what  I  did  not  know.  It  is  true  that  he  says,  that  there 
were  many  more— wiiy  then  did  he  not  produce  them;  and 
it  may  be  of  use  to  him  to  be  tcld,  if  he  does  not  know  it 
already,  that  his  bare  assertion  as  a  vvriter,  will  go  but  a 
short  way  v/itli  the  publick  at  present. 

And  here  I  would  observe  again,  that  I  am  sensible  that 
these  charges  and  replications  must  be  uninteresting  if  not 
unpleasant  to  the  reader;  and  some  may  say,  that  the  above 
charges  vvcre  notvrorthy  of  notice,  as  they  have  no  bearing 
on  the  question  at  issue,  even  admitting  that  tliey  wert. 
well  founded.  To  this  I  will  only  say,  'that  I  would  not 
have  noticed  them  at  all  as  they  respected  myself,  was  I  not 
aw^are,  that  Mr.  C.  and  his  friends  would  say,  that  1  pas- 
sed over  objections,  and  in  which  I  was  personally  concer- 
ned, because  I  could  not  answer  them;  and  that  this  would 
be  trumpeted  abroad  as  a  triumph  on  his  part  in  this  dis- 
cussion. And  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  remark  farther,  that 
in  the  fifth  letter,  and  elsewhere,  I  have  charged  him  witii 
a  number  of  gross  and  palpable  misrepresentations,  and 
shewn  that  some  of  his  alledgcd  misrepresentations  were 
misrepresentations  of  myself;  notwitlistanding  which,  he 
has  passed  them  by  v/ithout  any  notice,  or  even  an  attempt 
to  explain  them;  and  they  are  now  fixed  down  upon  liim  as 
so  many  stains  on  his  character  as  a  writer,  and  will  re- 
main so  until  they  are  removed  either  by  explanation,  or  a 
candid  acknowledgement.  Some  of  them  may  possibly 
admit  of  an  explanation,  but  of  others  it  is  impossible,  they 
are  so  glaring,  and  so  palpable.. 

Perhaps  some  of  my  readers  may  be  ready  to  ask,  how 
are  we  to  account  for  this  conduct  in  Mr.  C.  in-ieprosent  ■ 
ing  ail  his  opponents,  Baptists  not  excepted,  sometimes 
as  weak  and  puerile,  and  at  other  times  as  destitute  of  moral 
rectitude.  It  has  a  tendency  to  enlist  his  readers  in  Hi's 
favour  as  a  much  injured  and  misrepresented  man: to  pre- 
possess them  against  his  opponents;  and  in  iwy  own  opinion- 
was  designed  to  cover  the  weakness  of  his  arguments* 


£0^ 

it  may  be  farther  asked,  why  does  Mr.  C.  bring  forward 
again,  and  again,  the  same  arguments  which  have  been  re- 
futed, at  least  replied  to,  without  shewing  the  invalidity  of 
the  reply.  I  confess  I  do  not  know,  unless  that  he  calculated 
that  his  friends  would  not  read  the  answers  of  his  opponents; 
and  that  the  bold  and  confident  manner  in  wliich  he  reiter- 
ates those  arguments,  would  convey  the  idea,  that  they  are 
unanswered ,  and  unanswerable.  I  have  noticed  several  in- 
stances of  this  in  the  preceding  letters,  and  other  instances 
may  occur  before  I  have  finished  my  observations  on  his 
objections  in  the  debate  w^th  Mr.  M.  If  this  is  hot  an 
honourable,  and  honest,  it  is  at  least  a  compendious  way 
of  answering  an  opponent. 

Having  made  these  observations,  and  which  T  deemed 
necessary  for  the  reasons  assigned,  I  shall  now  examine 
the  objections  which  Mr.  C.  made  in  the  debate  with  Mr. 
M.  to  the  doctrines  laid  dow^n,  and  defended  in  the  pre- 
ceding letters.  It  is  not  my  design  to  review  that  debate 
any  farther  than  I  am  personally  concerned,  and  as  may  be 
necessary  to  the  reader's  understanding  the  objections 
made  against  myself  in  particular.  After  an  introductory 
speech  on  both  sides,  Mr.  C.  may  be  said  to  open  the  de- 
bate in  p.  .58,  by  reading  Mat.  28: 19— Acts  2:  41—8: 12, 
36,  &c.  as  containing  what  he  calls  "the  law  of  baptism:" 
or  the  qualifications  of  those  who  are  reported  in  those 
passages  to  have  been  baptized.  Now,  every  reader  of 
discernment  cannot  but  see,  that  the  foregoing  and  simi- 
lar passages  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  point 
then  to  be  investigated.  They  refer  to  adults  only;  or 
they  tell  us,  that  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  is  required 
of  aduit  persons  before  they  can  be  baptized.  But  as  I 
have  observed  in  the  beginning  of  the  preceding  letter, 
Pedobaptists  have  no  difference  with  Baptists  on  that  point, 
and  to  refer  to  the  "law  of  baptism"  as  it  respects  adults, 
as  an  argument  against  the  baptism  of  infants,  discovers, 
either,  an  unpardonable  ignorance  in  a  disputer  and  writer 
on  the  subject,  or  an  attempt  to  impose  on  the  ignorant  by 
a  shameless  sophistry. 

It  has  also  been  observed  in  the  first  letter,  that  the  ar- 
gument brought  against  the  baptism  of  infants  because  they 
are  not  capable  of  believing,  is  not  only  a  shameless,  but 
a  wicked  piece  of  sophistry.     It  involves  in  it  that  they 

cannot  be  saved;  hence  then,  instead  of  wasting  time  on 
■tkese  miserable  sophisms,  Mr-  M.  proceeded  to  prove,  th?*^ 
*19 


210 

tliere  was  a  church  of  God-*-a  church  in  the  fullest  setise 
of  the  word  in  the  Jewish  nation,  and  that  what  areusiiall}'- 
called  the  Jewish  church,  and  the  Christian  church,  are 
ONE,  and  the  same,  diflering  indeed  in  external  rites,  but 
the  same  in  substance,  and  in  essence.  Kever  have  I  seen 
a  point  more  fully  and  mere  satisfactorily  ]->roved,  and  by 
a  greater  variety  of  arguments,  even  according  to  Mr.  C'-s 
own  account  of  the  debate.  Mr.  M.  shewed  from  various 
passages  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  that  Jews  and 
Christiansj  "had  the  same  religion — ^are  called  by  the  same 
inspired  name — and  have  the  same  immutable  covenant.*' 
Having  established  this  important  point;  lie  then  shewed 
that  infants  were  admitted  into  the  church  of  God  by  the 
ordinance  of  circumcision  under  the  Jev/ish  economy,  and 
as  their  right  to  that  privilege  has  not  been  revoked,  that 
they  ought  to  be  baptized,  as  it  is  admitted  on  both  sides 
that  baptism  is  the  mean  of  induction  into  the  church  un- 
der the  present  economy  of  grace.  Never  were  premises 
more  clearly  and  solidly  laid;  and  never  was  a  conclusion 
ijtiore  obvious,  and  triumphant. 

And  here  it  may  not  be  unnecessary  to  remark,  that  Pe- 
dobaptists  are  not  usupaly  aw^^re  of  tlieir  strength  of  argu- 
ment on  this  point.  It  is  enough  for  them  to  prove  that 
there  was  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation,  and  that 
Infants  were  introduced  into  that  church,  and  it  belongs  to 
those  who  say  that  they  were  cast  out  to  prove  the  fact. 
The  ''onus  probandi^''^  or  the  burden  of  proof  belongs  to 
the  Baptists,  and  it  is  a  burden  which  they  feel  is  pressing 
them  to  the  dust.  The  great  solicitude  which  Mr.  C.  ex- 
pressed, and  the  art  v/h^ich  it  is  manifest  he  used  to  divert 
Mr.  M.  from  this  point;  and  when  he  could  not  succeed, 
the  w  eakness  and  the  absurdity  of  the  objections  which  he 
brought  against  the  argument,  is  a  proof  of  the  justness  of 
tlie  foregoing  observations.  My  present  design  will  not 
admit  of  reviewing  ail  those  objections,  I  shall  therefore 
notice  two  or  three  of  them  only,  and  on  which  he  has  pla- 
ced the  greatest  dependence. 

His  first  objection  to  the  argument  for  the  identity  of  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  churchy  is  deduced  from  the  inter- 
pretation which  Daniel  gave  of  the  kiirgdom  of  Christ  wdiich 
iinder  the  symbol  of  *'a  little  stone  cut  out  without  hands," 
should  destroy  "the  Image  composed  of  gold,  of  silver,  of 
brass,  and  of  iron  mixed  with  cl^y,*^  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
saw  in  the  visions  of  the  night, — "And  in  those  days^'^ 


'211 

3im  the  pfophet,  "shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  king-v 
dom  that  shall  never  be  destroyed—but  it  shall  break  in 
pieces,  and  consnnie  all  those  kmgdomsj  and  it  shall  stand 
foreverj-'  Dan.  £:  44.  The  kingdoms  alluded  to  v/ere 
the  fou^  great  Monarchies—The  Chaldean,  the  Fersiaii, 
the  Grecian,  and  the  liomaii:  paid  the  reader  may  nrr-;  be 
ready  to  ask,  hov/  does  Mr.  C.  prove  from  this  propheci 
and  its  interpretation,  that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  chui-cii 
are  not  one,  and  the  same.  In  this  v/ay,  in  p.  97,  he 
foists  in  what  he  calls  '°'the  sacerdotal  kingdom"  of  the 
Jews,  ari^ongst  those  kingdoms;  and  as  they  were  all  to  be 
destroyed  by  "the  little  stone,"  he  drav/s  the  conclusion 
that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church  cannot  be  the  sanie. 
because  the  Jewish  church,  or  ' 'sacerdotal  kingdom"  v/as 
destroyed  with  those  kingdoms. 

It  requires  no  great  degree  of  discernment  to  see,  that 
this  objection  is  founded  on  an  assumption,  and  a  blending 
of  things  v/hich  %vere  distinct  in  themselves.  It  assumes 
as  fact,  that  the  kingdoms  of  Israel,  and  of  Judah,  were  a 
part  of  the  four  great  monarchies.  Their  being  under  theii' 
temporary  influence  and  domination,  at  different  times,  is 
not  a  proof  that  that  was  the  casei  the  great  difference  in 
their  several  religions  forbade  such  a  coalition.  But  ad- 
mitting that  they  were,  the  objection  confounds  the  eccle- 
siastical with  the  civil  polity  of  the  Jews,  than  wliich  no 
two  things  were  more  distinct.  Their  kings  were  not  their 
priests,  nor  were  they  suffered  by  their  laws  to  assume  the- 
priestly  ojTice;  but  it  would  seem  by  the  words,  ''*tlie  sa- 
cerdotal kingdom,"  and  "the  kingdom  of  Priests,"  which 
Mr.  C.  uses  in  the  page  referred  to,  that  he  considers  the 
civil  government  of  the  Jev.-^s,  to  have  been  altogether  ec- 
clesiastical. But  who  does  not  knov.',  that  they  had  a  civil 
government  distinct  from  the  ecclesiastical;  and  might  not 
the  one  be  destroyed,  without  the  destruction  of  the  other. 
Now,  tliis  was  actually  the  case:  for  although  the  Jewish 
state  underwent  different  changes,  at  different  times,  from 
the  four  great  Monarchies,  yet  their  ecclesiastical  polity^ 
or  church  existed  until  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  And 
not  only  was  tliis  the  case,  but  before  the  kingdom  of  Ju- 
dah was  finally  destroyed  by  the  Roman  empire,  we  have 
the  testimony  of  an  apostle,  that  what  was  called  the 
Christian,  was  ^'ingrafted"  iiito  the  Jewish  church.  I 
shall  only  fartb.er  observe,  that  notwithstanding  the  pom- 
posity with  which  this  objection  is  brought  forward,  and 


^1'2 

uot withstanding  the  great  dependence  wKich  Mr.  C.  ptaces 
upon  it,  for  when  he  resumed  it  in  p.^  195,  "he  requested 
his  hearers  to  watch  him  closely,"  yet  when  examined,  it 
is  found  to  be  based  on  factitious  principles. 

Another  objection  to  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  church  is  deduced  in  page  155,  from  the  circum- 
stance that  the  one  was  typical  of  the  other:  but  similarity 
does  not  constitute  identity.  It  does  not  w'ith  regard  to 
individuals,  considered  as  such,  but  it  is  otherwise  with 
regard  to  those  individuals  who  constitute  the  church.  Wo 
do  not  pretend  to  explain  the  nature  of  that  identity;  bivt 
that  there  is  a  oneness  constituted  by  baptism  as  a  profes- 
sion cf  Christianity  in  opposition  to  Paganism,  Mahome- 
tanism,  and  Judaism,  is  apparent  from  various  expressions 
in  PauPs  epistles.  In  Gal.  3:  27,  he  says,  "As  many  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ:  There 
is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free, 
there  is  neither  male  nor  female:  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus.-'  That  there  is  a  oneness  of  a  more  important  na- 
ture and  character  constituted  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  true  believers,  is^  also  apparent  fi'om  1  Cor.  11: 
13 — "-For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or 
free;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit.*' 
And  not  only  is  this  the  case  in  the  present  dispensation, 
it  was  also  -the  case  in  all  the  preceding  dispensations  oi 
grace.  Thus  in  Song  6:  9,  the  bridegroom  of  the  church 
says,  ''My  dove,  my  undeal-ed  is  but  one;-'  and  in  the 
following:  verse,  the  same  woman,  or  the  church  is  repre- 
sented, "as  looking  forth  as  the  morning"  in  the  patriar- 
chal age;  '"fair  as  the  moon"  under  the  Mosaic  economy; 
* 'clear  as  the  sun"  in  the  present  dispensation  and  day;  and 
"terrible  as  an  army  with  banners,"  in  her  ndllenial  coa- 
quests  and  g'ory. 

From  the  foregoing  observations  you  w  ill  have  perceiv- 
ed, that  another  objection  in  the  same  page  is  scarcely 
worthy  of  notice,  ft  is  this — ''To  say  that  the  Jews  and 
Christian  religion  because  substantially  the  same,  are  one 
and  the  sam.e,  is  as  absurd  as  to  say,  that  because  a  house,  a; 
table,  and  a  chair  are  substantially  the  same,  therefore  a 
table,  a  chair,  and  a  house  are  one  and  the  same." 

I  presume  that  by  "the  Jews  and  Christian  religion"  in 
this  objection  he  meant  the  ordinances  of  the  two  dispen,-^ 
3ati(wis,     But  who  has  ever  said  that  they  were  gxe  and 


£13 

the  same,  in  the  sense  implied  in  his  simile.  Pedobaptist^^ 
sjav,  that  althougli  there  is  a  diiference  in  the  external 
form,  theyhau,  and  have  the  same  aspect,  object,  and  de- 
sign. They  directed  the  worshipper  to  the  same  objep^  of 
worship,  and  were  designed  to  lead  him  to  tiie  same  -^lamb 
of  God  v/ho  taketh  av,  ay  the  sins  of  tlie  world. "  ^ut  does 
tlus  difference  inr  regard  to  external  rites  destroy  the  iden- 
tity of  the  cliui'ch— that  is  the  qi^e^tion.  I  have  lately 
shewn  that  the  church  is  compared  to  a  woman  in  the 
scriptures:  and  h.e  might  as  vv-ell  say,  that  the  ciixiimstance 
of  a  woman's  putting  on  a  dress  this  day,  somewhat  dif- 
ferent in  form,  or  even  in  the  materials  of  wliich  it  is  com- 
posed, from  that  which  she  wore  yesterday,  destroys  her 
identity:  or  to  use  his  own  simile,  does  the  circum.stance 
of  a  piece  of  wood  being  made  into  a  house,  a  cliair,  cr  a. 
table,  destroy  the  identity  of  tlie  v.ood. 

it  will  be  recollected,  tliat  in  the  first  letter,  -JIcat..  1 1 ; 
lo — 24,  was  adduced  as  a  proof  of  the  identity  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  the  Christian  church,  or  that  the  latter  was  ingraf- 
ted into  the  former — ^that  in  the  close  of  the  last  letter  I 
called  upon  Mr.  C.  to  overturn  that  argument  if  he  could, 
and  to  defend  if  he  conld,  the  espositioii  which  he  gave  of 
that  passage,  and  which  I  have  pronounced,  and  still  do 
pronounce,  to  be  absurd  and  ridiculous.  In  p.  148—9, 
Tvir.  M.  adduced  the  same  passage  for  the  same  purpose^ 
or  that  the  apcstle^s  declaration  that  the  Gentiles  were  in- 
grafted into  what  he  styles  "the  good  Olive  tree,  ^'  is  a  proof 
that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church  are  the  same  in  sub- 
stance, although  differing  in  external  rites.  Mr.  C*s 
friends  and  the  publick,  did  certainly  expect  that  he  v/ould 
defend  his  exposition  of  that  passage,  or  at  least  make  the 
attempt,  and  shew  that  the  exposition  of  it  given  by  Mr.  M. 
and  myself  was  wrong.  And  is  not  this  the  case?  No- 
all  the  ansvver  given  to  my  call  and  argument  is— " that 
the  scope  and  meaning  of  that  paragrapli  (passage,  I  sup- 
pose he  meant)  so  often  attended  to,  and  whicii  is  so  fully 
exam.ined  in  Ids  debate  "with  Mr-  Walker,  pages  £7" — 30, 
beginning  witli  the  iGih  verse  of  Rom,  xi.  is  well  given  by 
Maokmght  i'n  his  paraphrase  of  t\\Q  first  clause  of  this 
■verse,"— -'*for  if  the  iirst  Jevvish  believers  have  been  ac- 
cepted of  God,  the  whole  nation  will  be  so  when  they  be- 
lievej"  p.  i  53.  Now,  this  is  only  an  exposition  of  the  words 
in  tiie  l^th  verse — ^•'■For  if  tlie  first  ftuit  be  holy,  the  lump 
is  ?lsO''^oly:''  and  admitting  it  to  be  correct,  what  has-it 


214 

i 

to  do  with  what  the  apostle  says  in  the  folbwing  verses,  of 
*^the  wild  Olive  tree,"  or  the  Gentiles,  being  grafted  into 
'•Hhe  good  Oli^e  tree,"  or  the  Jewish  chureh.  This  was 
th^  point  to  be  investigated,  and  to  this  bis  attention  was 
particularly  called;  but  he  passes  it  by  with  telling  us^. 
*'that  oa  the  stage  he  read  and  commented  on  the  whole 
passage  m  Mackmght's  translation,  but  that  it  was  too 
tedious  for  insertion  .then,  but  he  would  give  us  the  sub- 
stance at  another  time. "  But  that  time  is  not  yet  come. 
It  is  not  I  believe  in  the  remainder  of  his  book;  for  I  looked 
diligently  for  it,  bat  I  looked  in  vain.  What  will  his 
friends  and  admirers  now  say  of  their  champion  who  has 
*^*deiied  all  Christendom."  The  truth  is,  the  passage  re- 
ferred to,  of  itself  proves  beyond  all  controversy  the  one- 
ness of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church — Mr,  C.  saw  it, 
and  was  afraid  to  meddle  with  it  again. 

It  will  be  farther  recollected,  that  Eph.  2:  12 — 22,  was 
also  adduced  as  a  proof  of  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  and 
the  Christian  church.  It  appears  from  p.  239,  that  Mr.  M» 
also  adduced  this  passage  for  the  same  purpose.  In  p. 
243,  Mr.  C.  objects  by  saying,  that  the  word  ^'•twain'^^  in 
this  passage  ("for  to  make  in  himself  [Christ]  of  twain,  one 
new  man,  so  making  peace")  ''cannot  be  understood  ofa 
Jewish  church,  and  a  Gentile  church,  as  there  was  no  Gen- 
tile church,  and  therefore  must  mean  Jewish  people,  and 
Gentile  people."  It  docs  so;  but  not  Jews  and  Gentiles 
as  such,  but  Jewish  believers,  and  Gentile  believers  in  Je- 
sus as  the  Messiah.  Nor  does  the  phrase  '*one  new  man, "  ' 
in  the  same  passage,  mean  ''anew  body,  anew  association 
never  existing  bii^re,"  as  Mr.  C.  says  it  does.  The  words, 
-^'so  making  peace, ^'  which  immediately  follow,  tell  us,  that 
it  alludes  to  the  circumstance  of  what  is  called  in  the  15ia- 
verse,  "the  law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinan- 
ces," or  the  ceremonial  law  to  which  the  Jews  were  strong'- 
ly  attached,  and  the  Gentiles  opposed,  being  taken  away 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  wliereby  a  way  was  opened  up  for 
reconciling  those  discordant  parties,  and  for  admitting  the 
Gentiles  into  the  church  in  as  full  a  manner  as  the  Jews; 
or  as  the  apostle  expresses  it  in  Rom.  11 :  17,  "for  ingraft- 
ing the  Gentiles  into  the  good  Olive  tree,"  th^t  they  migK^ 
* 'partake  of  its  root  and  fatness." 

When  Mr.  M.  had  triumphantly  proved  the  *<1  entity  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  church,  and  the  conseqt«ent  right 
cf  the  children  of  baptiz;ed  parents  to  the  ordinanceof  bap- 


215 

tismi  he  proceededio  other  sources  of  proof  whieh  he  styles 
^^probable,^^  and  ^'posifive.^^  The  probable  proof  he  de- 
duces from  proselyte  Baptism  among  the  Jews,  and  the 
positive,  from  what  we  are  told  on  the  subject  in  the  New 
Testament.  As  I  am  not  concerned  in  the  first  species 
of  proof,  I  shall  pass  it  over  with  the  observation,  that  I 
think  he  has  clearly  established  the  Tact;  and  proceed  i» 
consider  Mr.  C's  objections  to  the  second  ground  of  proof, 
and  in  which  he,  and  myself  come  more  immediately  into 
contact  I  and  in  which  we  have  additional  specimens  of  the 
manner  in  which  he  treats  Iiis  opponents,  and  we  think, 
for  the  purposes  already  mentioned. 

It  seems  that  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  Mr.  M.  addu- 
ced the  observations  which  I  have  made  in  the  second  let- 
ter, respecting  the  Greek  words  Oikos,  and  Oikia,  when 
used  figuratively,  to  denote  the  inhabitants  of  a  hoiise,  or 
dwelling  place. — ^That  OiJws  is  used  both  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  and  the  Greek  Testament,  to  denote  children  sepa^ 
rately  from  their  parents,  and  sometimes  little  children 
exclusively—- That  as  the  Oikos  or  family  of  Lydia,  of 
Cornelius,  of  the  Jailor,  and  of  Stephanas,  are  said  to  have 
been  baptized,  that  it  follows,  that  infants  were  baptized, 
or  the  inspired  penman  has  used  a  Vv  ord  calculated  to  de- 
ceive both  Jews  and  Greeks^. 

To  tills  Mr,  C'.  replies  by  saying  in  pages  278,  and  283, 
"that  it  is  a  refuge  of  l^es" — "the  mere  fabrication  of  an 
overweening  imagination" — and  "designed  to  lead  captive 
the  ignorant  and  unwary  admirers  of  the  patented  priest- 
hood.^^ Ai-er  this  ebullition  of  not  unusual,  and  indiscrim- 
inate abuse  of  tlie  Pedobaptist  clergy;  and  I  tiiink  you  vv^ill 
say,  notunworthy  of  the  meanest  scribbler,  in  the  highest 
garret  in  Billingsgate,  he  tries  to  lessen  the  force  of  tlie  ar- 
gument by  an  ostentatious  display  of  quotations  from  the 
Septuagmt,  and  Greek  Testament,  but  vv^hich  every  dis- 
cerning reader  will  have  perceived^  have  not  the  least  bear- 
ing, nor  effect  on  the  argument.  In  the  first  place  he  has 
adduced  a  f-.nv  passages  from  the  New  Testament,  where 
those  words  are  used  interchangeably,  to  denote  a  house  or 
dwelling  place^  And  wliatnow  is  this  to  the  point.^  I  have 
said  so  in  the  beginning  of  the  letter.  Secondly,  he  has 
detailed  a  few  instances  from  the  New  Testament,  where 
Oikia  is  used  to  denote  a  whole  family,  children,  and  ser- 
vants, I  have  also  admitted  that  this  might  be  the  case? 
but  I  have  proved  positive' j  from  Fhil.  4 :  22,  and  more  than 


516 

probably  from  Acta  16:  32,  and  1.  Cor.  15:  16,  that  it  is 
used  to  denote  the  servants  exclusively.  Thirdly,  he  has 
adduced,  and  detailed  a  few  instances  from  the  Septua- 
o-int,  where  Oikosisxuftd  to  denote  the  servants  of  a  fam- 
ilyj  but  let  it  be  recollected,  and  particularly  noticed,  not  a 
single  instance  from  the  New  Testament  where  it  is  so 
used.  It  v/as  to  this  circumstance  that  I  had  reference 
when  I  said,  'nhat  the  distinction  betwixt  oikos  and  oiJda. 
is  accurately  observed  in  the  New  testament.*'  On  this 
I  founded  my  argument?  and  I  have  accordingly  shev/n, 
that  in  all  the  accounts  which  we  have  of  family  bap 
tisms,  it  was  the  aikos  and  not  the  oikia^  who  weie  bap- 
tized. This  is  the  pivot  on  which  the  controversy  as 
it  regards  this  argument  turns;  and  until  Mr.  G.  or 
■iome  of  his  aids  vvill  shew,  that  oiJda  is  used  to  de- 
note infants  exclusively,  and  that  the  oikia  were  bapti- 
zed., all  his  objections  vanish  like  smoke,  notwithstanding 
all  the  pomposity  witli  which  they  are  brought  forward, 
and  tiie  low  scurrility  with  which  they  are  mixed,  and  the 
above  argument  for  infant  baptism  remains  solid  and  un- 
touched, it  is  a  galling  argument,  an<l  tlierefore  every 
mean  has  been  resorted  to,  to  lessen  its  forces  but  hov/  in- 
effectual all  his  quotations  are  for  that  purpose,  iho.  dis- 
cerning reader  has  seen.  Indeed,  I  am  persuaded  that 
Mr.  C.  was  conscious,  thatl^'s  objections  were  irrelevant, 
and  why  he  brought  them  forward  I  cannot  conjecture- 
unless  that  he  calculated,  that  the  force  of  tlie  argument 
migiit  be  lessened  or  obscured  to  the  urJ earned  reader,  by 
such  a  pompous  aiid  detailed  display  of  passages  from  the 
septaagint  and  the  Greek  testament,  where  the  -words  oi- 
hj3  an'i  oikia  are  mentioned.  "^Vithout  any  boastirig,  I 
liow  say,  that  the  above  prjument  is  unanswered,  and  I 
believe'unanswerable,  and  is  a  positive  proof  of  tiie  bap- 
tism of  the  infants  of  baptized  parents. 

The  objection  in  page  28^2,  that  I  represent  Paul  and 
Silas  as  preaching  to  ttie  jailer  and  his  servants,  but  not 
to  his  v.ife  and  children,  is  scarcely  vrorthy  of  notice.  Wc 
are  not  told  that  he  had  a  wife  -it  (he  time,  and  to  support 
his  objection  Mr.  C.  should  liave  proved  that  he  had.  But 
we  are  told  that  he  had  children,  and  that  they  were  bap- 
tized; and  tiie  very  circumstance  of  its  being  said,  i\vdi 
Paul  and  Silas  preached  to  the  oikia.  and  not  to  the  oikos, 
is  a  strong  presumptive  proof  that  his  cliildren  were  not 
capable  of  hearing  'Hbe  word'-  $30  as  to  proiit  by  it,     T*^ 


217 

]}fove3  that  ihej  were  infants^— but  more  on  this  point  ini 
niediatelv. 

In  pages  283—5,  we  have  another  specimen  of  the  man- 
mv  in  which  Mr.  C.  treats  his  opponents,  and  we  believe 
for  the  purposes  already  mentioned.  I  have  obsarved  in 
the  second  letter,  that  Paul  and  Silas  did  not  require  of  the 
Jailor's  children  "to  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,*' 
because  the  verb  '^believe'^  in  the  Slst  verse  is  in  the  sin- 
gular number,  and  in  the  second  person^  and  because  it  is 
.said  in  the  34th  verse,  that  the  Jailor  only  believed;  from 
v/hichi  drew  the  conclusion  that  the  Jailor's  house  could 
not  have  been  baptized  on  account  of  their  ovrn  faith,  but 
on  account  of  tiie  faith  of  their  parent.  It  appears  that  in 
the  debate  Mr.  M.  made  the  same  remark,  and  drev/  the 
same  conclusion;  and  as  an  answer  to  us  both,  Mr.  C.  ex- 
claims in  his  usual  style — * 'Admirable  grammarians!'- — 
and  afterv.ards  tells  us,  "that  he  is  almost  ashamed  to  re- 
fute such  boyisms  as  appear  in  these  criticisms;  and  that 
he  has  corrected  school  boys  for  blunders  less  egregious.''.' 
Afcer  having  thus  disposed  of  us  both  as  a  couple  of  igno- 
rant and  assuming  blockheads,  he  tells  us  in  answer,  that 
there  is  an  ellipsis  in  the  Slst  verse,  and  that  according 
to  this  figure  it  should  read  thus — "Believe  thou  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved,  and  let  thy  House  believe  and  the}/  shall  be 
saved. " 

It  may  perhaps  be  necessary  for  tiie  sake  of  the  unlearned 
reader  to  observe,  that  ellipsis  is  a  fiojure  in  rhetorick 
by  which  a  word  is  left  out  in  a  sentence  for  the  sake  of 
conciseness,  but  it  should  never  be  used  at  tiie  expense  of 
perspicuity,  nor  of  the  concords-of  grammar.  Nov/,  I  must 
tell  tills  admirable  gramm'h.rian  and  rhetorician,  that  al- 
though there  is  an  ellipsis  in  this  verse,  it  is  of  the  v/ord 
"s«i;eJ,"  and  not  of  the  word  "Se/zcL-e."  This  is  evident 
from  the  very  structure  of  the  sentence  itself.  Salvation 
was  promised  to  the  Jailor  on  his  believing,  and  salvation 
was  promised  to  his  House — "thou  shaltbe  saved  and  thy 
House:"  but  not  one  word,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  hint 
respecting  their  believing.  We  are  not  even  told  that  they 
were  \}VQ6ent  at  the  time  that  Paul  and  Silas  addressed 
their  father,  nor  v/ere  they  addressed;  the  salvation  there- 
fore promised  to  tiiem  was  in  consequence  of  the  faith  of 
^'leir  parent,  and  as  observed  in  tiie  second  letter,  can 

^an  nothing  more  than  the  means  of  salvation,  of  which 
9.0 


218 

v/e  have  sliewn  baptism  is  one,  and  which  we  are  told  vvas 
conferred  upon  them  that  very  night. — '*And  he  was  bap- 
tized, and  all  his  straightway."  Besides,  had  Paul  and 
Silas  called  upon  the  Jailor's  family  to  believe,  they  would 
have  said  pisteusate,  "believe  ye,''  and  not pisteuson,  "be- 
lieve thou;"  and  had  the  inspired  historian  intended  to  in- 
form us,  that  the  Jailor's  family  believed  on  that  occasion, 
he  would  have  said  in  the  34th  verse  peplsteuhotes,  "they 
having  believed,"  and  not  peplsteukoos,,  "having  himself 
believed. "  Every  reader  of  good  common  sense,  although 
not  acquainted  with  the  figures  and  rules  of  rhetorick,  will 
see  the  justness  of  tfie  preceding  observations,  and  I  am 
not  afraid  to  say,  that  every  literary  readet  will  pronounce 
them  just  and  correct. 

Mr.  C.  has  indeed  adduced  John  4:  53,  Acts  18:8,  and 
11:14,  as  parallel  passages,  where  he  says  a  similar  ellipsis 
is  used.  There  is  an  ellipsis  of  the  word  "believe"  in  the 
two  first  of  these  passages,  bat  every  grammarian  knows 
that  they  are  constructed  differently  from  the  passage  now 
under  consideration.  In  John  4:  53,  where  it  is  said, 
"that  the  ruler  believed  and  all  his  house,"  there  is  a-n 
ELLIPSIS  of  the  word  "believed,"  and  may  be  read,  "the 
ruler  believed,  and  his  /iowse  believed,"  because  the  verb 
"believed"  (espisteusen)  is  in  the  third  person,  and  so  are 
its  nominatives  ruler,  and  housej  but  as  already  obser- 
ved, the  verb  pisteuson  in  the  passage  we  have  exarnined 
is  in  the  second  person  singular.  The  preceding  observa- 
tions are  applicable  to  Acts  18:  8 — '.'And  Crispus  believed 
with  all  his  house."  Acts  11:  14 — "Who  will  tell  thee 
words,  whereby  thou  and  all  thy  house  shall  be  saved," 
is  indeed  a  parallel  passage  wil^i  Acts  16:  31,  and  teaches 
the  very  same  doctrine,  n.nd  supports  the  interpretation 
which  I  have  given  to  that  passage.  Salvation  was  prom  • 
ised  to  the  fiousE  of  Cornelius,  as  well  as  to  himself  in 
consequence  of  "the  words"  wliich  Peter  should  tell  him, 
not  them.  Now,  as  observed  in  the  second  letter,  no  words 
however  good,  told  to  Cornelius,  and  believed  by  him, 
could  .confer  either  spiritual  or  eternal  salvation  on  Iiis 
house;  the  salvation  promised  to  them  must  therefore 
mean  the  means  of  salvation.  Did  Mr.  C.  possess  those 
talents,  that  information,  and  critical  acumen,  which  he 
does  not  scruple  in  p.  347,  to  tell  us  he  possesses,  he 
would  never  have  adduced  this  passage  in  support  of  his 
system,  and  an  objection  against  mine.     His  vv'eakest  ad- 


219 

Inirers  cannot  but  see,  that  it  militates  strongly  against 
liiin;  and  when  considered,  and  carried  out  in  all  its  be:*  • 
ings,  completely  overthrows  the  Baptist  system  in  regard 
to  infants. 

And  now  I  think  T  may  say,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Jai- 
lor's family  establishes  beyond  all  peradventure,  the  bap- 
tism of  a  MOUSE  on  account  of  the  faith  of  the  |)arent.  The 
more  it  is  examined,  the  fuller  and  clearer  is  the  proof. 
It  is,  us  the  criticks  would  say,  the  ciiux,  or  cross  of  the 
iiaiitiat  system  I  it' is  therefore  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that 
r.very  art  which  ingenuity  or  sophistry  could  devise  have 
been  put  in  requisition  to  fessen  its  force  and  evidence,  and 
when  this  will  not  avail,  of  bold  assertion  and  misrepresent 
lation.  An  instance  of  this  occurs  in  p.  292,  where  Mr. 
C.  adduces  the  com-mon  translation  of  the  S4th  verse— 
'•^Believing  in  God  with  all  his  hoiise,^^  as  a  proof  that  the 
Jailor's  family  believed  as  well  as  himself:  notwithstanding 
he  has  been  repeatedly  told,  and  if  he  knows  any  thing  ol 
(h.e  Greek  language  must  know,  that  i]\Q  participle  ^^c/?2£ - 
tcukoos  is  in  the  singular  number}  and  is  predicated  of  the 
Jailor,  and  not  of  his  family. 

With  respect  to  Lydia  and  her  house,  Mr.  C.  says  in 
p.  265, — "that  it  is  probable  she  was  an  unmarried  woman, 
a  travelling^  merchant — that  it  is  probable  that  the  brethren 
mentioned  in  the  4Cth  verse  were  niem.bers  of  her  family, 
servants,  or  relations  in  licr  employ— that  to  evade  the 
force  of  this  consideration  Mr,  Ralston  supposes  that  the 
brethren  in  this  house  were  Timothy  and  Luke — and  that 
after  Paul  and  Silas  were  released  from  prison,  they  went 
to  comfort  and  console  them  before  their  departure;  but 
this  is  absurd,  for  Paul  did  not  leave  Timothy  nor  Luke 
behind  him  in  Philippi." 

Now,  the  greatest  part  of  the  above  quotation  is  improb- 
able conjecture,  and  some  of  it  glaringly  untrue.  Wheth- 
er Lydia  was  a  married  or  unmarried  woman  at  the  tim^e 
Paul  and  Silas  met  v/ith  her  at  Philippi,  I  do  not  know, 
nor  does  Mr.  C.  know;  but  I  positively  know  that  she  had 
a  family  (Otkos)  and  that  they  were  baptized,  and  there  is 
not  the  least  hint  that  they  were  believers.  Nor  does  Mr« 
C  know  that  she  was  a  travelling  m.erchant;  for  might  not 
"a  dealer  in  purple"  remove  froni  Thyatira  to  Philippi,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  residing  there,  as  a  place  more  suitable 
for  vending  her  merchandize.  Nor  is  it  true  that  I  have 
only  supposed  ihdit  Timothy  and  Luke  abode  in  her  house 


2£0 

during  the  imprisonment  of  Paul  and  Silas^  I  have  poti- 
Tlvelj  proTed  it:  nor  have  I  said  that  Paul  left  Tiniothj 
and  Luke  behind  him  at  Philippi.  The  reader  is  reques- 
ted to  review  v,  hat  I  have  said  on  these  last  points  in  the 
second  letter,  and  then  let  him  say,  if  Mr.  C.  should  have 
ever  mentioned  the  word  misrepresentation. 

All  that  Mr.  C.  has  objected  to  v;hat  I  have  said  respec- 
ting the  family  «f  Cornelius  has  been  already  noticed:  and 
his  objections  to  my  remarks  on  the  baptismofthQ  house 
of  Stephanas  is  scarcely  worthy  of  notic*e.  It  has  been  ob- 
served that  when  Paul  speaks  of  that  house  in  1.  Cor.  1. 
16,  as  a  family  which  he  had  baptized,  he  uses  the  word 
Oikos,  but  when  he  speaks  in  chap.  15:16  of  that  house  as 
* -addicting  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,'*  he 
uses  the  word  Gilda,  and  v.hich  I  have  shewn  is  used  by 
this  sam.e  apostle  to  denote  the  servants  of  Csisar  the  Ro- 
man emperor.  To  this  Mr.  C.  objects  in  p.  £91,  that  it 
could  not  be  the  servants,  but  the  children  of  Stephanas, 
who  are  praised  for  ' 'addicting  themselves  to  the  ministry 
of  the  saints"  as  that  would  be  "'at  their  master's  expense.'' 

I  shall  leave  this  objection  with  this  single  remark,  that 
the  character  given  of  Stephanas  himself  is  a  proof,  that  the 
attention  paid  by  his  servants  to  the  saints,  was  with  his 
consent,  and  most  probably  by  his  orders j  and  only  farther 
trjscrvs  on  this  point,  that  it  has  been  objected,  that  if 
family  baptism  had  been  a  common  occurrence  in  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  we  vrouldhave  been  furnished  vrith  a  fuller 
account  on  this  point  than  is  upon  record. 

That  it  was  a  common  occurrence  in  the  church  of  Co- 
rinth, is  implied  in  the  words  which  immediately  follow 
the  account  given  us  of  the  baptism  of  the  house  of  Ste- 
phanas— "And  I  baptized  (says  the  apostle)  the  household 
(Oikon)  of  Stephanas,  besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  bap- 
tized any  cthcr.'^^  These  words,  as  already  observed, 
♦dearly  imply,  that  other  families  had  been  baptized  a.t 
Corinth,  although  not  by  the  apostle.  And-'the  reason 
why  he  had  not  baptized  any  other  house,  he\ tells  us  in 
the  preceding  and  subsequent  contexts — "Lest  it  should 
be  said  that  he  baptized  in  his  own  name,"  or  as  the  head 
of  a  party^  "and  that  Christ  had  not  sent  him  to  baptize," 
or  to  addict  himself  principally  to  the  administration  of  that 
ordinance, '  'but  to  preach  the  Gospel  ."- 

Mr.  C.  however  asserts  in  p.  £92,  '-that  we  have  no 
account  that  any  other  fr.inilies  v/ere  baptized  bv  the  ciVJir- 


;22i 

lies  than  those  mentioned;  for  PauPs  words  that  he  did 
not  know  whether  he  had  baptized  anj  other  at  Corinth, 
means  individuals^  a.s  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  English  New 
Testaments  declare." 

The  Latin  and  English  New  Testaments  are  but  trans- 
lations, and  in  many  instances  defective  translations;  the 
point  therefore  must  be  determined  by  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, as  every  disputed  point  ought  to  be,  and  as  has  been 
our  practice  throughout  tlie  Vv^hole  of  this  controversy. 
Now,  we  fearlessly  affirm,  that  the  Greek  Testament 
' 'declares"  the  very  reverse  of  Mr.  C's  assertion.  The 
vv'ords  translated  "any  other,"  are  ^Hina  allon,^^  both  ad- 
jectives, and  have  for  their  substantive  oikon,  house,  with 
which  they  agree  in  gender,  number,  and  case.  They  are 
aH  of  the  masculine  gender,  singuLar  number,  and  accu- 
sative case,  but  * 'individuals"  are  plural.  This,  we  think, 
settles  that  point — Does  Mr.  C.  understand  Greek;  or  is 
he  not  a  conceited,  boasting  sciolist.^ 

You  will  recollect  that  in  the  conclusion  of  the  last  letter, 
I  called  upon  Mr.  C.  to  discuss  and  refute,  if  he  could, 
the  arguments  for  infant  baptism  which  I  have  deduced 
from  Acts  2:  38,  39,  "for  the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children,"  and  from  Mat.  £8:  19;  and  from  1.  Cor.  7:  14, 
•  In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  passages,  he  tells  us  in  his 
''animadversions,"  p.  407,  that  Mr.  M.  did  not  introduce 
it  into  the  debate,  and  he  presumes,  that  it  was  "because 
he  sav/  that  it  would  not  bear  a  struggle. "  If  that  was  the 
case,  it  v/oukl  then  be  the  easier  conquest  for  himself;  and 
the  reader  would  expect  that  h&  would  so  dispose  of  it  as 
never  to  be  brought  forward  again  as  a  proof  of  Pedobaptism . 
I  have  observed  in  the  first  letter  that  the  promise  in  this 
passage  evidently  refers  to  Gen.  17:  7,  v.'here  Jehovah 
promises  to  be  "a  God  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed"  con- 
stituted members  of  the  church,  under  that  dispensation, 
by  the  ordinance  of  circumcision — and  as  both  adults  and 
infants  became  members  of  the  church  by  that  ordinance-— 
and  as  the  dispensation  was  then  changed,  that  Peter  en- 
joined baptism  on  both  parents  and  children  as  the  mean 
of  initiation  under  the  present  dispensation,  in  his  "stric- 
tures" Mr.  C.  proposed  6  queries  on  this  very  point,  and 
demanded  my  answer;  expecting  that  I  could  not  ansxver 
"them  without  relinquishing  the  position  that  "theIprom- 
ise"  had  reference  to  Gen.  17:  7,  and  admitting  that  it  re- 
■  .  *20 


222 

lerred  to  the  propliecy  of  Joel.  Although  not  mider  the 
necessity,  by  the  laws  of  fair  argumentation,  of  answering 
those  queries,  you  v/ill  remember  that  1  have  answered 
them  distinctly,  and  shewed,  I  trust,  that  to  refer  ''the 
promise''  in  Acts  2:  38,  to  JoePs  prophecy,  involved  in 
it  a  number  of  the  greatest  absurdities.  And  what  now 
is  his  answer  to  all  this? — Will  his  friends  believe  it— The 
simple  and  reiterated  assertion,  that  "the  promise"  refers 
to  Joel's  prophecy;  and  as  I  have  said,  "that  it  does  not 
mean  baptism;  it  avails  nothing  to  my  scheme  to  prove  that 
it  means  any  thing  else."  What! — Does  it  avail  nothing 
to  my  scheme,  that  Peter  urged  baptism  on  the  Jews  and 
their  children,  from  the  promise  of  God  that  he  v/ould  be 
"a  God  to  them,  and  to  their  seed  after  them."  But  the 
children  there  spoken  of,  says  Mr.  C.  *'were  not  necessa- 
rily infants;  for  all  the  Jews  w^ere  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, although  100  years  old."  I  have  shewn  the  absurdity 
of  this  interpretation  in  the  first  letter,  to  which  the  read- 
er is  referred.  And  admitting  that  the  word  ''children" 
means  what  he  says  it  does,  it  affects  not  my  argument  in 
the  smallest  degree;  for  according  to  his  own  definition  of 
it,  it  includes  the  infant  as  vv  ell  as  the  adult,  and  this  is 
enough  for  the  Pedobaptist  argument.  That  his  argument 
might  have  any  force,  Mr.  C.  should  have  tried  to  prove., 
that  the  word  in  this  passage  means  adults,  and  adults 
only,  and  that  none  of  the^  3000  whom  Peter  addressed 
had  infant  children.  Let  the  reader  now  say,  if  he  has 
ever  met  with  a  feebler,  yea  sillier  reply  than  Mr.  C.  has 
oftered  to  what  I  have  said  on  this  passage  in  the  fir&t  and 
fifth  letters,  and  which  he  says,  "could  not  bear  a  struggle." 

Mat.  28:  19— "Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  was  brought  up  in  the  debate,  pp.  81 — 113 — 15. 

In  examining  that  passage  in  the  second  letter,  I  have 
offered  reasons  why  I  consider  infants,  as  well  as  adults 
included  in  Christ's  commission  to  his  apostles.  And  what 
now  has  Mr.  C.  offered  against  those  reasons?  As  is  not 
unusual,  the  bare  assertion  that  infants  were  not  included 
in  the  above  commission.  He  also  repeats  what  he  had 
said  in /the  debate  with  Mr.  W.  "that?«  etJme^  the  nations, 
being  neuter  is  not  the  antecedent  to  etufoits  which  is  mas- 
culine, and  which  is  the  accusative  governed  by  matheteu- 
sate.  Its  antecedent  is  mathefas  in  the  verb  matheieusatey' 
Vat  no  attempt  to  rem.ove  the  absurdity  which  I  have  shewa 


attends  this  iiilerpretatLori;  nor  yet  to  try  bis  critical 
ucumen  on  a  siniilaT  passage  which  I  produced  from  the 
Septuagint.  He  tries  indeed  to  support  his  reiterated  as- 
iiertionsby  referring  to  one  of  his  own  rules  in  regard  to 
positive  institutes — ^'that  positive  laws  imply  their  ncga- 
tivesj"  but  we  will  pass  this  over  at  present,  as  we  intend 
shortly  to  examine  "the  positive  precept  and  precedent" 
for  female  comnmnion  wliich  he  tells  us  he  has  lately  found 
cut.  I  shall  only  farther  observe  here,  that  in  examining 
the  above  passage  I  have  also  offered  reasons  why  I  think 
that  infant's  as  well  as  adults  are  included  in  the  w^ord 
^^disciples'\m  Acts  15:  10— "and  why  tempt  ye  God  to 
put  a  yoke  [circumcision]  on  the  neck  of  the  disciples, 
which  neither  our  fathers,  nor  w^e  w^ere  able  to  bear."  And 
what  does  my  opponent  offer  against  those  reasons?  Not 
one  word,  although  he  says  that  in  the  debate,  he  offered 
'^40  rest  the  whole  controversy  on  the  proof  of  that  posi- 
tion," p.  124.  Well  then,  the  controversy  is  at  an  end  in 
regard  to  himself,  until  he  sets  aside  those  reasons. 

1.  Cor.  7:  14^^"The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified 
by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
husband,  else  were  your  children  imclean^  but  now  are  they 
hoh/^^'  was  also  referred  to  in  the  debate,  p.  82. 

The  reader  will  recollect  that  I  have  also  examined  this 
passage  in  the  second  letter,  and  proved,  I  trust,  that  it 
cannot  refer  to  any  thing  but  to  that  federal  lioliness  which 
resulted  to  the  child  of  a  Jew  from  the  circumstance  that 
the  parent  was  circumcised,  in  consequence  of  which  the 
child  was  entitled  to  be  brought  also  into  the  church  of 
God  by  circumcision — and  that  according  to  the  apostle's 
reasoning  the  same  holiness  is  transferred  to  the  infants  of 
a  baptized  parent  or  parents,  under  the  {jresent  dispensa- 
tion; in  consequence  of  which  they  are  entitled  to  ba  in- 
troduced into  the  same  church  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
And  wdth  what  now  do^  Mr.  C.  meet  and  ansv/er  the 
foregoing  argument.  With  this  on]  y— "that  tire  holiness 
there  spoken  of  belongs  ti>  those  children  until  they  die, 
notwithstanding  they  should  be  unbelievers,  and  incapable  of 
baptism  all  their  lives,^^  Surely,  his  warmest  friends  and  ad- 
mirers expected  something  more  than  this,  and  the  publick 
expected  at  least,  that  he  would  tell  us  definitely  what  he 
meant  by  this  "holiness,"  for  he  admits  that  it  is  a  holiness, 
that  can  tousist  with  a  state  of  unbelief.    I  can  conceive  of 


224 

no  other  reasou  for  the  omission,  than  that  he  still  Ijoids  the 
definition  which  he  gave  of  it  in  his  <]  ebate  with  Mr.  W.  p.  62, 
and  on  which  I  have  rJready  remarked—- that  it  means  legit- 
imacy of  birth,  or  that  the  children  of  married  parents  are  le- 
gitimate so  long  as  the  parents  cohabit,  but  should  they  sep- 
arate from  ePcch  other,  that  circumstance  renders  the  chil- 
dren illegitimate.  Unhappy  children  of  quarrelsome  pa- 
j-ents  !~but  I  have  not  a  word  more  to  say  on  this  point.  Those 
who  can  embrace  Mr.  C's  interpretation  of  this  passao;e,  are 
prepared  to  believe  any  thing  however  v/eak,  wild  aiid  ex- 
travagant. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe,  that  when  Baptist 
wnters  are  driven  by  the  strongest  arguments  and  clearest 
reasoning,  from  the  difierent  positions  v.'hich  they  assume, 
they  take  refuge  under  the  following  syllogism — Baptism 
is  a  -positive  institute,  '^and  in .  positive  institutes  we 
are  not  to  reason^'^^  "and  positive  laws  imply  their  neg- 
atives;" but  there  is  no  positive  precept  or  precedent  for 
baptizing  infants:  therefore  they  ought  not  be  baptized. 
When  asked  where  the  positive  precept  or  precedent  for 
admitting  wonyen  to  the  Lord's  table  is,  tliey  know  not 
what  \q  sa3%  and  the  most  unlettered  of  their  readers  see 
the  nakedness  of  their  argument;  for  it  cannot  but  occur  to 
them  that  the  above  argument  is  a'sophism,  or  not  a  woman 
however  pious  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper, 
as  there  is  neither  positive  precept  nor  precedent  for  ad- 
mitting them.  Mr.  Booth  endeavoured  to  rescue  the  Bap- 
tist system  and  church  from-  this  perplexing  difficulty  by 
telling  us  that  in  1.  Cor.  11:  28,  the  Greek  word  anthro- 
pos  often  signifies  the  male  and  the  female — "But  let  a 
man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread  and 
drink x)f  that  cup."  Every  person  who  has  read  Peter 
Edwards'  answer  to  Mr.  Booth,  cannot  but  remember  with 
v/hat  poirited  but  just  irony  he  has  exposed  the  positive 
precept  of  the  transatlantic  chaiijpion  of  the  Baptists.  In 
a  note  in  p.  STT,  Mr.  C.  tells  us  with  no  small  degree  of 
exultation,  "that  upon  a  close  examination  of  the  scrip- 
tures," he  has  found  out  a  positive  precept  for  female  com- 
munion, and  iri  the  very  chapter  v/here  the  great  Booth 
had  foundered  and  failed  in  a  most  pitiable  manner.  And 
as  he  says,  that  Mason,  Walker,  Armstrong  and  myself, 
"have  laid  great  stress"  on  the  want  of  a  positive  precept 
01'  precedent  for  female  communion,  "he  trusts  that  if  hny 


objection  can  be  made  lie  will  now  hear  it,  or  r.ever  after 
hear  of  that  miserable  excuse  for  infant  sprinkling. "  Tke 
positive  precept  is  contained  in  tlie  foil ovving quotation. 

^•That  the  v.crd  aneer  man  occurs  14  times  in  the  firs^t 
'•15  verses,  and  the  v/ord  gune  woman  occurs  16  times  in 
*'the  same  number.  After  speaking  cf  the  man  and  the 
''"voman  as  both  membei-s  of  the  church,  and  after  having 
-'pointed  out  their  peculiar  duties  in  some  respects,  the 
* 'apostle  uses  the  \vGrd  tUw  16  of  both  genders p-eferring 
'^•to  both  cmeer  and  gime^  and  then  uses  the.  pronouns  ?/'S  and 
''^you  addressing  both  genders.  As  the  pronoun  stands  f^r 
•-the  nouu,  so  you  represents  both  man  and  woman  its  aate- 
"cedent.  As  often  says  the  apostle,  as  ye  who?  Doubt- 
'♦less  the  antecedent;  for  the  pronoun  stands  for  i]\Q  noun. 
''as  ail  grammarians  teach—as  often  as  ye  men  and  wo- 
"men  of  whom  I  have  been  speaking,  eat  this  bread  and 
"'•drink  this  cup  (in  the  margin)  shew  ye  (men  and  women) 
*'forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Here  then  is  a  pos- 
"itive  command,  men  and  women  shew  fjrth  the  Lord's 
"death  till  he  corne.*' 

Such  reader  is  Mr.  C's  positive  precept  for  female  com- 
munion. I  have  no  doubt 'but  that  you  are  ready  to  say- 
Does  not  his  reasonings  %\\Qh  as  it  is,  in  this  quotation,  de- 
stroy his  ov;n  rule  which  he  so  often  inculcates,  and  on 
^vhich  he  has  placed  so  much  reliance — That  in  positive 
precepts  we  are  not  to  reason.  He  has  guarded  against 
this  by  telling  you,  that  if  you  will  sa,y,  there  is  reasoning 
or  ''inference*'  in  the  foregoing  quotation  it  will  be  at  the 
risk  G-f  your  "common  sense;-' and  if  you  are  possessed  af 
"common  erudition,"  it  will  be  "an  insult  to  your  intel- 
lect." You  may  say,  this  is  anev/  species  of  argumentj 
])ut  novelties  of  even  an  extraordinary  kind,  are  not  un- 
common in  Mr.  C's  writings. 

"What  Mason,  Armstrong,  and  Yv'alker,  may  say  or  do 
in  this  case  I  do  notknov/jbutas  respects  myself,  notvv-ith- 
standing  llie  danger  to  my  "common  sense,"  and  to  what- 
ever "erudition"  I  may  possess,  I  would  beg  leave  to  say 
that  I  have  {wo  or  th re e^  objections  to  this  "positive  pre- 
re}>t."  and  which  I  think  are  not  unworth}!"  of  the  atten- 
lion  cf  Mr.  C's  friends  and  admirers.  I  would  therefore 
observe,  that  the  apostle  evidently  discusses  three  distinct 
-ubjects  in  tbat  chapter,  and  to  apply  the  reasonings  on 
one  of  these  subjects,  to  tlie  odiers,  is  contrary  to  all  tlie 
■lies  cf  sound  criticism,  and  correct  interpreiation— It  if. 


S26 

sophistry  of  the  most  glaring  kind.  His  first  object  v^ia. 
to  correct  what  was  considered  indecorous  in  those  dayy 
' — women  praying  or  prophesying  in  pubiick  with  unveiled 
faces,  and  which  takes  uptiie  first  15  verses;  and  to  these 
verses,  and  the  subject  contained  in  them,  the  word  gtnic 
is  evidently  confined. 

His  second  object  was  to  reprove  the  Corinthiims  on  ac- 
count of  their  contentions,  and  this  embraces  tlie  iGth, 
1  r(h,  1 8th,  and  i9th  verses.  '  'But  if  any  man  (Us)  seems 
to  be  contentious,  v/e  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the 
churches  of  God."  The  Greek  word  tis  in  this  verse, 
translated  "any  man,"  is  indeed  of  both  genders  as  Mr. 
C.  has  observed,  and  so  is  the  word pkiloneikos,  ''conten- 
tious," when  used  in  the  attic  dialect,  and  yet  there  is  nvO 
proof  that  it  is  so  used  in  this  place;  but  the  adjectives  hoi 
dokimoi.  "approved,"  and  phanerci,  "manifest,"  in  the 
IGth,  and  which  have  reference  to  tis  in  the  16th  verse, 
are  both  of  the  masculine  gender,  and  determine  the  gen- 
der of  iis»  Where  now  is  Mr.  C's  gi-me  v.hich  he  found  so 
often  in  the  first  15  verses?  She  has  disappeared,  nor  is  she 
to  be  found  again  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  And  indeed 
the  circumstance  that  contentions  in  ehurch  and  state  are 
usually  agitated  and  managed  by  the  men,  and  not  by  the 
women,  might  have  convinced  any  man,  that  by  Us  in  the 
16th  verse,  the  apostle  had  reference  to  the  man  and  not 
to  tlie  vroman,  and  it  is  accordingly  so  translated. 

But  what  comes  more  immediately  to  the  point,  the 
apostle's  third  object  was  to  correct  the  abuses  which  had 
crept  into  the  church  in  eating  the  ordinance  of  the  supper, 
and  to  point  out  its  true  character  and  design.  And  who 
nov/  were  the  persons  guilty  of  those  abuses?  Was  it  the 
men  or  the  wom.en,  or  both?  A  bare  inspection  of  the 
original  text  tells  us,  that  it  was  the  men,  while  there  ia 
not  the  most  remote  allusion  to  the  women. — '-For  in  eat- 
ing, every  one  (hekastos)  ta.keth  before  other  his  own  sup- 
per, and  on^  (hos)  is  hungry,  and  another  (hos)  is  drun- 
ken;" all  of  which  words  are  in  the  masculine,  and  not  one 
of  them  in  the  fem.inine  gender. 

And  yet  this  is  not  all.  Admitting  that  the  apostle 
from  the  16th  verse  had  used  a  word  or  words  that  kept 
up  the  idea  of  both  genders,  whereas  the  reverse  is  the 
fact;  the  verb  ''kataggeUele'^  in  the  '28th  verse,  and  on 
which  the  whole  stress  for  a  positive  precept  lies,  is  a  word 
of  doubtful  disputation  in  regard   to  its  meaning  in  thi> 


^%7 

^..ace;  and  oiiglit  not  therefore  to  have  been  adduced  as  a 
proof  of  a  positive  precept.  Our  translators  have  rendered 
it,  ''•ye  do  shew  forth,"  and  Mr.  C.  "do  je  shew  forth. ^• 
It  will  admit  of  either  of  these  translations^  but  as  I  have 
observed  in  the  third  letter,  where  a  w^ord,  or  words  are 
produced  as  a  proof  of  a  positive  precept,  "they  ought  to 
be  so  clear,  and  so  distinctly  defined,  as  to  admit  of  no 
other  meaning ,  and  like  axioms  to  involve  their  own  evi- 
dence. *' 

"Now  for  the, express  precedent,*- as  Mr.  C.  expresses 
itj  It  is  to  be  found,  he  says,  in  Acts  2:  42 — "x\nd  they 
continued  stedfastly  in  the  apostle's  doctrine  and  fellovv- 
-ship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,*'  or  as  he  translates  it,  "in 
breaking  the  loaf.'' 

The  first  question  which  now  presents  itself  is,  what  are 
we  to  understand  by  the  words  "breaking  of  bread?-' 
Some  commentators  do  ijideed  understand  by  them,  the 
eating  of  the  Lord's, supper:  but  others  think  that  they  have 
reference  only  to  v»'hat  is  said  in  the  foilovv^ing  verses,  of 
the  primitive  Christians  ''having  all  things  in  common |" 
and  of  their  '■^breaking  bread  from  house  to  house,  and 
eating  their  meat  with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart." 
The  words  then  v/hich  are  again  adduced  as  a  proof  of  a 
positive  precedent  far  female  communion,  are  also  words 
of  a  doubtful  meaning  ia  that  place,  and  preclude  the  very 
id-ea  of  an  express  precedent. 

We  might  stop  here;  but  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  examine 
this  new  express  precedent  a  little  farther.  The  next 
question  is;  who  are  the  persons  who  are  said  to  have  been 
thus  employed?  The  3008  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
verse,  and  who  are  said  to  have  been  baptized, — *'*Tiien  ihey 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized,  and  the  same 
day  .here  were  added  mito  them  about  30G0  souls.  And 
they  continued  stedfastly  in  the  apostle^s  doctrine  and  fel- 
lowship, and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers. "  And 
does  not  Mr.  C.  say  so  too?  Yes — But  he  tel^s  us^  that  to 
those  3000  we  must  annex  the  persons  mentioned  so  far- 
away as  the  14th  verse  of  the  first  chapter,  and  the  first 
verse  ©f  this  chapter,  and  instead  of  SUGG  make  up  the 
number  of  3120.  But  v.'hy  this?  Because  women  are  men- 
tioned among  the  120;  and  women,  get  them  where  he 
Avould,  were  indispensibly  necessary,  for  making  out  the 
express  precedent  for  female  communion;  and  you  must 
moreover  believe  him  th.at  there  is  neither  reasonino-,  nor 


inference  in  the  way  he  makes  it  cut.  i  will  only  farther  &aj, 
that  it  is  very  unlike  the  express  precedent  for  the  baptism 
of  females  in  Acts  8:  12— "And  they  were  baptized,  both 
men  and  womeni"  and  i  think  that  the  intelligent  reader 
will  saj,  tliat  Mr  C's  new  express  precept  and  precedent 
for  female  communion  arSthe  most  extraordinary  that  have 
been  published  in  the  last  50  years — They  exceed  even 
Mr.  Booth's. 

I. will  only  add,  tliat  it  is  not  true  that  Pedobaptists  call 
for  an  express  precept  or  precedent  for  female  communion, 
"as  an  excuse  fur  infant  sprinkling,"  as  he  still  scoSngly 
stiles  infant  baptism;  but  to  shew  Baptists  themselves  the 
sophistry  of  requiring  positive  precepts  or  precedents  for 
administering  positive  institutes.  As  has  been  already  ob- 
served, if  the  riglit  of  pious  women  to  the  ordinance  of  the 
supper,  and  the  right  of  tlie  infants  of  baptized  parents  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism.,  can  be  proved  by  clear  inferences 
from  scripture  premises,  it  is  as  valid,  and  wdl  be  as  sat- 
isfactory to  every  intelligent  and  unprejudiced  person,  as 
if  it  had  been  said  in  so  many  words — that  believing  wo- 
men arc  to  be  admitted  to  the  table  of  the  Lord — and  the 
infants  of  baptized  parents  are  to  be  baptized.  In  the  de- 
bate with  Mr.  W.  Mr.  C.  himself  when  called  upon  to 
prove  the  first,  proved  it  clearly  by  inference,  and  by  in- 
ference only;  and  I  think,  tliat  I  Wave  as  clearly  proved 
the  latter,  if  1  have  not  produced  positive  precept  and  pre- 
cedent. I  shall  conclude  this  letter  by  advising  Mr.  C. 
to  send  his  argument  against  infiint  baptism  deduced  from 
the  want  of  a  positive  precept  or  precedent,  over  to  some 
friend  in  England,  to  be  deposited  in  the  tomb  of  Mr. 
Booth  with  whom  I  think  it  originated;  as  it  is  found  to  be 
of  no  more  use  on  this  than  om  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic; 
and  to  be  not  only  a  miserable  but  a  wicked  sophism;  ex- 
cluding every  female  however  pious,  from  the  table  of  the 
Lord.  As  for  the  second  argument,  that  inf  mts  are  not  to 
be  baptized,  because  they  are  not  capable  of  believing,  he 
may  as  well  send  it  with  the  first,  for  it  is  also  a  wicked 
sophism;  as  according  to  it  no  infant  can  be  saved.  On 
those  two  v/retched  sophisms  hang'-i  the  whole  Bapti^ttsys- 
tem  in  regard  to  infants;  for  as  has  been  frequently  observ- 
ed, the  baptizing  an  adult  believer,  is  a  principle  and 
practice  rommon  to  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists, 


LETTER  X. 

ALL  %vho  have  read  the  debate  between  Mr.  C.  and 
Mr.  M.  cannot  but  have  observed,  that  it  was  conducted  in 
an  extraordinary  manner  on  the  part  of  Mr.  C.  He  tells 
us  ill  p.  161  that  he  entered  upon  the  mode  of  baptism,  be- 
fore Mr.  M.  had  finished  his  argument  for  the  identity  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  as  they  are  usually  cal- 
led. This  conduct  of  Mr.  C.  will  doubtless  be  attributed 
to  difterent  causes,  by  different  persons.  Some  may  sup- 
pose that  his  fondness  for  baptism  by  immersion,  which  he 
says  in  p.  134  is  "a  purgation  of  all  sins,"  led  him  to  this 
haste.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  he  saw  the  strength  and 
unassailable  character  of  Mr.  M's  argument,  and  dreaded 
the  clear  and  irresistible  concliisicnfrom  it,  for  infant  bap- 
tism^ and  therefore  endeavoured  by  evetyart  he  could  de- 
vise to  divert  him  from  Iris  argument.  But  Mr.  M.  was 
not  to  be  diverted,  until  he  brouglit  out  the  triumphant 
conclusion,  to  the  dismay  of  Mr.  -C.  aiid  I  have  no  doubt 
to  the  dismay  of  every  Baptist  v/ho  vas  present  on  the 
occasion.  ■ 

But  let  Mr.  C's  reasons  for  this  haste  be  what  they  niayi 
he  makes  his  debut  by  telling  us  in  p.  182 — 6,  how  m.any 
different  words  the  Greeks  used  to  denote  the  application 
of  water  to  a  person  or  thing — how  often  the  words 
"sprinkle,  pour,  v/asli,  dip,  plunge,"  are  used, in  the  New 
Testament — and  that  bapto  and  h.aptizo  are  never  render- 
ed by  the  English  translators  by  ^'* sprinkle'^  or  "•pour,'^' 
No\A^,  this  is  admitted, '.and  we  have  already  assigned  the 
reasons  why  those  words  are  not  so  translated..  We  have 
observed  that  the  translators  wQre  strongly  inclined  to  the 
Baptist  system,  and  as  a  proof  adduced  several  instances 
where  they  have  translated  in  favour  of  inimersion  to  the 
manifest  violation  of  the  rules  of  universal  g;ranimar,  and 
where  the  preceding  and  subsequent  contexts  evidently  re- 
quire a  different  translation.  .  But  the  question  is  not, 
how  these  words  are  translated,  but  in  what  sense  they  are 
used  in  the  sacred  oracles.  In  p.  165—7,  Mr.  C.  reprodu- 
ces the  authority  of  Dr.  Campbell,  to  v/hich  he  adds  Dr. 
MoKni^ht,  and  Simon  the  Jesuit,  as  a  proof  that  thosft 
9A. 


£30 

Words  signify  to  im  mer se,  and  to  immerse  only.  We  are  not 
disposed  to  pay  much  respect  to  the  sophistries  of  the  Jesu- 
its; nor  does  our  cause  need  such  aid;  and  we  will  meet  with 
Ur.  McKnight  hereafter.  With  respect  to  Dr.  Campbell,  it 
has  been  shewn  that  he  was  mistaken  on  this  point,  and 
Dan.  4:  S3  was  produced  as  a  proof,  where  it  is  said  in 
the  Septuagint,  that  Nebuchadnezzar's  body  was  ''•ivet''^ 
(ebaphe)  v/ith  the  dew  of  heaven,  and  that  this  must  h?«Ye 
been  by  the  dew  being  poured  out  upon  him. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  replies  in  p.  303,  ''that  this  wETKCGlnusJ: 
be  understood  figuratively — ^^that  Pedobaptists  must  admit 
it  on  their  own  principles!  for  they  do  not  suppose  that 
they  should  administer  baptism  in  the  manner  in  which 
that  impious  monarch  was  baptized— and.  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar slept  on  the  dewy  grass,  and  v,as  overwhelmed  with 
it  as  a  person  in  a  river." 

I  do  not  know  of  any  principle  of  Pedobaptisni  which 
requires  of  those  Vvho  hold  it  to  understand  this  weting 
figuratively;  and  I  am  persuaded  that  Mr.  C.  cannot  pro- 
duce aPedobaptist  writer  v.ho  says  that  a  spiiitual  mean- 
ing was  couched  under  it.  Nor  do  Pedobaptists  refer  to  it 
as  containing  directions  how  they  are  to  administer  bap- 
tism; but  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of 
the  verb  bapto.  And  admitting  to  Mr.  C,  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar was  overwhelmed  with  dew  as  he  lay  on  the  grass, 
this  dew  must  have  been  poured  out  upon  him,  and  this  is 
all  that  their  argument  requires;  but  the  mode  of  baptism 
for  vrhich  he  contends  is  a  being  plunged  in  water;  and 
however  copious  the  dew  was  in  that  country,  this  was  not 
the  case  with  that  unliappy  monarch.  Besides,  had  that 
monarch  been  overwhelmed  vdtkdewas  a  Baptist  is  over- 
whelmed jn  a  river,  he  could  not  have  lived  during  the 
night,  without  a  miracle.  When  Mr.  C.  writes  his  third 
book  on  baptism,  he  is  requested  to  remove  these  difficul- 
ties, or  to  admit  that  bafto  is  used  in  that  passage  to  signify 
^•to  pour  out,*'  or  "to sprinkle." 

To  the  foregoing  instance  I  would  add,  that  there  is  an- 
other passage,  Lev;  14:  15, 16,  where  bapto  is  used,  but 
where  it  cannot  mean,  nor  could  be  designed  to  mean,  ''to 
immerse^"  or  '"to  overwhelm." — "And  the  priest  shall 
take  some  of  the  log  of  oil,  and  pour  it  into  the  palm  of  his 
own  left  hand;  and  the  priest  shall  dip  (bapsei)  his  right 
finger  in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left  liand,  and  shall  sprinkl- 
of  the  oil  seven  times  before  the  Lord. " 


It  is  scarcelj  necessary  to  observe,  tltac  the  priest's  ri'ght 
iin^er  could. not  be  overwhelmed  with  the  oil  which  the 
palm  of  his  left  hand  could  contain:  but  it  could  be  smeared, 
or  weted  by  it.  Tiie  words  which  immediately  follow 
bapsei  are  an  additional  proof  that  it  'is  not  used  in  that 
place  to  signify  to  plunge  or  to  immerse.  Had  that  been 
the  case,  it  would  have  been  '*bapsei  els  to  elaion,'^  he 
3hali  dip  it  into  the  oil,  but  it  is  ^^bapsci  apo  tou  elaiou,'^ 
which  can  have  no  other  meaning  than  that  he  shall  stain  or 
wet  it  with  the  oil.  In  p.  S£9  Mr.  C.  adduces  this  very 
passage  as  an  instance  where  bopto  is  used  to  signify  to  dip^ 
but  he  took  care  to  withhold  the  v/ords  "orpo  tou  elaiou," 
CVS  that  Vvouid  have  discovered  his  ignorance  or  sophistry 
even  to  a  school  bo}-,  A  man  of  his  literary  pretensions 
should  have  known  that  the  preposition  apo  never  means 
info — ^but  VtC  will  meet  v/ith  this  preposition  again.  Exod, 
V2:  22,  is  another  instance  wK^ere bapto  is  manifestly  used 
to  signify  to  wet,  or  to^smear. 

And  not  only  is  this  verb  used  in  the  above  sense  in  tlie 
Septuagint,  it 'is  also  so  used  in  Rev.  19:  13,  where  the 
Son  of  God  is  represented  as  vrearing  a  vesture,  ''*bebam- 
mmoii  aimati,^^  sprinkled,  or  stained  v.ith  blood.  Every 
Greek  scholar  knows  that  this  is  the  true  translation;  for  if 
the  inspired  penman  had  intended  to  convey  the  idea  tliat 
his  vesture  was  dipped  in  blood,  he  vrnuld  have  written  be- 
bammenon  cis  to  aima.  Lev.  14:  51  is  so  rendered  by  the 
Septuagint — in  regarti  to  the  cleansing  of  a  leprous  house. 
- — ''And  the  Priest  shall  take  the  living  bird,  and  the  cedar 
Vvood,  and  t}i2.  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  (bapsei) 
dip  them,  cis  to  aima,  in,  or  i.ntoihQ  blood  of  the  bird  that 
was  killed  overtlie  running  water."  Besides,  should  we 
understand  the  participle  belammenon  in  Rev.  19:  13,  as 
alluding  to  the  blood  which  trie  .Saviour  shed  upon  the 
cross,  as  some  commentators  do,  or  to  the  blood  of  his  en- 
emies shed  in  a  stat^  of  hostility  against  him,  as  is  the  more 
probable  opinion  cf  others^  in  neither  of  these  cases  can 
the  allusion  be  admitted  that  the  blocd  was  collected  in  a 
vessel  and  his  vesture  dipped  in  it;  but  in  either  of  them, 
or  in  both,  it  is  easy  to  admit  that  his  vesture  vras  stained 
or  sprinkled  v/ith  blood. 

But  this  is  not  all;  for  strange  as  it  may  appear,  Mr.  C. 
acknov/ledges  in  p.  165,  that  the  Hebrew  word  tebel,  which 
aiisv.ers  to  the'  Greek  word  bapto  is  translated  bv  the 


Sepiiiagint  moluno,  \v]\ic\\  signiiies  to  dye,  or  to  stain.  '^■ 
This  is  the  word  which  they  use  in  Gen.  37: 31,  respecting 
Joseph's  coat  of  many  colours.  Our  translators  in  their 
zeal  f&r  promoting  baptism  by  dipping,  have  translated  the 
passage  thus— ''And  they  took  Joseph's  coat,  and  killed 
a  Idd  of  the  goats,  and  dipped  the  coat  in  the  blood. "  But 
every  person  will  perceive  that  the  coat  could  not  have  been 
dipped  in  the  blood  of  a  kid  killed  in  the  open  fields,  and 
the  blood  probably  spilled  on  the  grassy  bufit  could  be>  and 
Yvas  stained  by  it,  'Besides,  had  the  coat  been  dipped  in, 
and  covered  all  over  v/ith  blood,  Jacob  could  not  have  cer  • 
tainly  known  it  to  have  been  the  coat  of  his  son  5  for  be  re- 
cognized it  because  of  its  many  colours.  And  yet  notwith- 
standing the  foregoing  acknowledgement,  and  i\iQ  instan- 
ces v>'hick  have  been  produced  to  the  contrary,  it  is  not 
improbable  that  Mr.  C.  may  again  assert  that  bapto  is  nev- 
er used  in  the  sacred  oracles  to  signify  to  pour  out,  or  to 
sprinkle.  It  is  true  that  cheo  is  often  used  to  signify  the 
former,  and  raino  the  latter;  but  who  does  not  knov/,  that 
in  every  l-.nguage  different  words  are  used  to  express  the 
same  idea;  and  not  only  so,  but  that  tlie  same  word  is  some- 
times used  in- different  acceptations.  This  consideration, 
and  tliis  well  known  fact  obviates  ail  his  ai'guments  on  this 
point  in  p.  329,  and  elsewhere. 

To  the  reiterated  assertions  in  his  "strictures,"  that 
I  could  not  produce  any  instance  from  the  Nev*'  Testament 
where  baptizo  v/ith  its  conjugates  is  used  to  signify  to 
pour  out,  or  to  sprinkle,  it  will  be  recollected  that  in  tlie 
7th  letter,  I  produced  in  the  first  place  Heb.  9: 10— "whicli 
stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  diverse  washings, 
(baptismous)  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  thera  un- 
til the  time  of  reformation."  It  was  observed  that  the 
diverse  washings,  or  baptisms  in  that  passage,  had  refer- 
ence to  the  different  purifications  enjoined  by  the  Levitical 
litual — that  some  of  these  consisted  in  sprinkling  water 
on  the  person  or  thing  to  be  puritled,  and  some  of  them,  in 
dipping  the  person  or  thing  in  water — and  that  in  the  ISth 
verse  the  apostle  m.entions  "l:];e  sprinkling  the  unclean 
with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,"  with  what  is  called  ia  the  19th 

*In  his  notes  on  Hark  7:  4,  Dr.  Campbell  says,  ''that  the  Hebrew 
TBBEx  perfectly  corresponds  to  the  Greek  bapto  and  baptizo, 
which  are  synonimous,  and  is  chnvys  rendered  by  one  or  the  other 
of  them  in  the  Septuagint.  "j  Vie*  abf.ve  is  a  proof  that  he  v.ss 
mistaken  with  respect  to  the  scriptural  meaning'  of  those  words/" 


etiap.  of  Lev.  "the  water  of  separation,"  as  one  of  those 
baptisms. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  replies  in  a  note  in  p.  295,  *'tbat  I  have 
defeated  mjself,"  bj  admitting  tliat  some  of  these  piirifi* 
cations  required  the  immersion  of  the  priests  or  people 
when  ceremonially  unclean— and  that  in  the  13th  verse 
the  apostle  has  changed  his  subject,  and  speaks  of  ''^sprink- 
/in 0-5  as. contradistinguished  from  immersions." 

On  examining  more  minutely  the  directions  given  for 
the  purification  of  the  priests  and  people,  I  find  that  I  have 
admitted  too  much  v;hen  I  said  that  some  of  tliese  purifi- 
cations required  the  immersion  of  themselves  in  water.  I 
was  led  into  the  mistake  by  an  impression  on  my  mind  at 
the  time,  that  in  those  places  where  it  is  enjoined  that  they 
should  "bathe  themselves  in  water,"  the  verb  bapto  was 
used  by  the  Septuagint.  But  on  examining  those  places 
1  find  that  it  is  not  used  in  a  solitary  instance,  but  the  verb 
louo  which  signifies  to  wash  in  general,  without  any  ref- 
erence to  the  mode  of  wasliing.  Bapto  is  indeed  used 
when  cerem.onially  unclean  household  untensils,  and  other 
things  were  to  be  cleansed,  and  also  in  the  directions  giv- 
en for  preparing  some  of  the  purifying  material;  but  I  do 
not  know  that  a  single  instance  can  be  prod  need,  v/here  it 
is  used  to  denote  v/ ashing  as  a  religious  rite,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cleansing  the  ceremonially  unclean.  On  the  con- 
trary, in  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  the  cleansing  material 
was  to  be  sprinkled  or  poured  on  the  person  to  be  cleansed. 
Tiiis  also  was  the  case  v/ith  \^'hat  was  called  the  v/ater  of 
separation — It  v/as  to  be  sprinkled  on  the  person  to  be 
cleansed,  as  is  apparent  from  the  19th  chapter  o/Numbers. 
How  I  have  defeated  mj'self  by  the  above  inadvertent  ad- 
mission; or  how  it  aiFects  the  point  at  issue  either  one  way 
or  another,  is  what  I  cannot  see.  The  question  was,  is 
baptizo  aUvays  used  in  the  Greek  Testament  to  signify  to 
immerse,  and  to  immerse  only.  I  have  proved,  and  I  think 
beyond  all  contradiction,  that  bapto,  the  root  oi  baptizo, 
baptismos,  and  baptisma,  is  used  to  signify  to  pour  cut  to 
wet,  as  well  as  to  dip,  and  pouring  is  only  a  profuse  sprink- 
ling. It  will  not  be  said  that  derivatives  are  used  in\a 
less  extended  sense  than  the  words  from  which  they  are 
derived .  On  the  contrary  their  meaning  is  often  extended, 
iiud  hence  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  the  conclusion  thai 
^''0  *^?pri!iklinp;"  mentioned  in  the  15th  verfc  is  one  of  thf^- 


'•washings*^  mentioned  in  the  lOth  Terse.  Tiiis  coiiclu- 
8ion  is  strengthened  bj  the  circumstance  that  the  cerenw- 
nial]  J  unclean  are  not  said  to  be  dipped  in,  but  sprinkled 
with  water  in  order  to  their  cleansing,  and  is  in  my  view, 
a  strong  presumptive  argument  that  baptizo  which  is  not 
only  derived  from  bapio,  but  is  moreover  a  diminutive,  is 
never  used  to  signify  to  immerse  vv  hen  denoting  the  initia- 
ting ordinance  into  the  Christian  church.  Besides,  the 
assertion  that  the  Apostle  in  the  13th  verse  speaks  of  the 
dilferent  sprinklings  imposed  on  the  Jews  is  not  only  gra- 
luitous,  but  contradicted  by  the  very  expression  which  he 
emploj/s.  It  is  not  ''sprinklings,"  as  Mr.  C.  writes  it^ 
but  "sprinkling,"  or  sprinkling  as  one  of  the  diverse  bap- 
tisms which  he  had  already  mentioned.  To  which  may 
be  added,  that  the  word  ''diverse,"  or  various  {dlaphorois) 
is  of  itself  a  proof  that  he  had  reference  to  various  modes, 
of  Avashing.  Washing  by  immersion  is  one  and  the  same 
mode  of  washing;  but  as  the  Jews  washed  by  sometimes 
immersing  the  thing  to  be  washed  in  water,  and  sometimes 
by  pouring  water  upon  it,  hence  then  the  expression  "di- 
verse" or  various  baptisms.  / 

.1.  Cor.  10: 2,  was  also  adduced  as  a  baptism  which  mast 
have  beenJiy  affusion  or  sprinkling,  and  not  by  immersion. 
"And  they  were  all  baptized  (ebaptisanto)  unto  Moses, 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea." — It  was  observed  on  tiiis 
passage,  that  as  it  is  said,  that  the  Israelites  "walked  on 
dry  land,"  they  could  not  have  been  immersed;  and  that 
whatever  that  baptism  meant,  or  was  designed  to  prefigure, 
the  little  children  and  infants  were  baptized  as  well  as  the 
Tfien  and  women. 

Mr.  C.  has  prudently  for  his  system  passed  over  the  last 
observation,  without  the  least  notice;  and  in  p.  302  tells  us, 
"that  the  Israelites  were  baptized  in  tlie  cloud  and  sea 
taken  together" — "that  the  cloud  above,  and  the  water  on 
each  side  completely  overv/helmed  them" — "and  yet  he 
ihinks  that  not  one  drop  of  water  fell  on  them" — and  the 
mere  circumstance  of  their  being  surrounded  with  water, 
and  covered  with  a  cloud  is  called  their  baptism. "    ' 

/rhis  is  indeed  a  new  idea,  and  a  new  theory  of  baptism-, 
Auhough  the  inspired  penman  expressly  says  that  they  were 
baptized;  and  although  Mr.  C.  strenuously  contends  that 
hay/tizo  signifies  to  immerse  in  water,  yet  lie  will  notadtiiit 
that  a  single  drop  of  v/ater  w^as  sprinkled  on  the  Israelites, 
\Xrom  the  cloud,  or  from  the  se^i.     Well  then,  if  there  can 


oe  "a  baptism  v.-iuiout  cue  drop  of  water  touching  the  suij- 
iects,  pi'ovided  they  are  surrounded  with  it j  ir>ight  it  not  be 
tidmiiiisteied  bv  enclosing  tnem  in  large  casks,  and' im- 
liicTsing  the  casks  in  w^ater.  It  would  be  an  excellent  ex- 
pedient for  preserving  health  and  life  in  cald  climates,  and 
m  iAie  coldest  season  of  the  year,  and  would  obviate  a  very, 
serious  and  perplexing  objection  to  the  Baptist  systein. 
li^d  this  suggestion  proceeded  from  Mr.  C.  in  the  first 
place;  or  should  he  now  recmninend  it,  I  have  no  doubt  but 
that  some  of  his  admirers  would  adopt,  it^  for  they  have 
svrallov.-ed  dogmas  and  adopted  practices  from  hiiii,  not 
moi'e  wild  nor  extravagant.  But  enough  of  this  nev/  theo- 
ry of  baptism,  without  one  drop  of  water  toyehing  the  sub- 
ject. It  cannot  be  ansv.'ered  gravely;  v/e  will  therefore 
dismiss  it,  with  this  observation,  that  the  above  passage 
not  only  evinces  the  propriety  of  baptizing  little  children 
and  infants  as  v/eii  as  men  and  women,  but  tells  us,  that 
sprinkling  is  a  proper  mode  of  applying  the  v/ater  to  the 
subject. 

1  Pet.  3:  £1,  was  also  adduced  as  another  in.^^ance 
where  baptism,  and  christian  baptism  too  is  mentioned,  but 
where  there  could  not  be  any  allusion  to  immersion  as  the 
mode — "Eight  souls  were  saved  by  water;  the  like  figure 
v/hereunto  even  baptism  (baptisma)  doth  also  now  save 
us."  It  vv^as  observed,  that  in  this  passage  the  apostle 
<ira.ws  the  comparison  between  the  temporal  salvation  of 
Noah  and  his  House  by  v/ater.  and  baptismal  v/ater  as  a 
mea.n  of  spiritual  salvation— and  that  there  could  not  be 
any  allusion  to  baptism  by  immersion  in  that  extraordinary 
preservation,  for  it  was  the  lawless  antediluvians  v/ho  were 
immersed,  while  Noah  and  hisfainily  were  doubtless  sprin- 
kled by  the  spray  of  the  boundless  ocean  tumbling  and 
i)reakiug  around  them.  Instead  of  attempting  a  direct  reply 
to  this,  Mr.  C.  in  p.  274  refers  me  to  the  notes  of  Dr. 
BP Knight  on  the  passage,  "as  a  solid  refutation,*'  with  the 
remark  that  the  Dr.  was  a  Pedobaptist.  Although  those 
notes  are  rather  too  long  for  our  intended  brevity,  we  will 
however  give  them  entire  as  quoted  by  Mr.  C.  that  the 
reader  may  seethe  supposed  analogy  betw^een  Noah  in  the 
ark,  and  a  Baptist  buried  in  the  water.  I 

"1.  As  by  building  the  ark  and  entering  into  it,  Noah 
sliewed  a  strong  faith  in  the  promise  of  God,  concerning 
his  preservation  by  the  very  water  which  v/as-to  destroy 
the  antediluvians  for  their  sins,  so,  by  giving  ourselves  to 


x56 

be  burle.I  in  the  Water  by  baptism  we  shew  a  like  faith  in 
God's  promise,  though  we  die  and  B.vQbiirisd,  he  will  raise 
us  ffOLn  death  the  punish ir^ent  of  sin,  by  raising  us  from 
the  dead  at  the  last  daj." — Now,  who  does  not  see,  that 
iiistead  of  an  analogy  in  this  note  bstweeh  Noah  m  the  ark, 
and  a  Baptist  buried  in  the  water,  the  reverse  is  the  fact. 
Koah  was  savsd  by  bein^  above  the  water,  tho'igh  doubt- 
less sprinkled  by  it;  but  accordins;  to  the  Baptist  system 
the  believer  is  saved  by  being  buried  in  it. — If  such  a  mode 
of  speech  was  admissiljle,  it  is  such  an  analogy  as  is  between 
above  and  beneath. 

'°2.  As  the  prcserdngNoah  alive  during  the  nine  months' 
be  was  in  the  floods  is  an  emblem  of  the  preservation  of 
the  souls  of  believers  alive  v/hile  in  the  state  of  the  dead, 
so,  the  preserving  believers  alive,  while  buried  in  the  water 
of  baptism,  is  a  prefiguration  of  the  same  event." — Now, 
it  is  not  true  that  Noah  was  '*in  the  flood"  during  nine 
months.  He  was  above  it,  and  had  he  been  "in  the  flood'^ 
during  nine  days,  or  nine  minutes,  there  would  have  been 
an  analogy  between  him  and  a  Baptist  in  the  water,  but  as 
he  was  above  it,  the  compaiison  is  ridiculous. 

"3.  As  the  waters  of  the  deluge  destroyed  the  wicked 
antediluvians,:  but  preserved  Noah  by  hearing  up  Vhq  ark 
in  which  he  v/as  shut  up,  till  the  v/aters  vv'ere  assuaged, 
and  he  went  out  of  it  to  live  a^ain  on  trie  earth,  so,  bapiism 
may  he  said  to' destroy  the  wicked,  and  to  save  the  righteous^. 
as  it  prefigures  both  of  those  events,  the  death  of  the  sin- 
ner it  prefigures  by  burying  the  baptized  person  in  water; 
and  the  salvation  of  the  righteous,  by  raising  the  baptized 
person  out  of  the  water  to  live  a  new  life."— I  confess  I 
know  not  what  to  make  of  this.  In  the  passage  under 
examination  the  apostle  speaks  of  baptism  as  a  saving  ordi- 
nance, or  as  I  understand  it,  a  mean  of  spiritual  salvation^, 
but  Dr.  McKnight  as  a  destroying  ordinance  to  all  who 
are  not  true  believers.  Surely  Mr.  C.  must  have  been 
pinched  indeed  when  he  produced  the  self-contradictory 
analogies  of  this  Pseudo-Pedobaptist  as  a  proof  tliat  baptis- 
Qna  in  this  passage  must  mean'  iminersion. 

In  the  preceding  page  Mr.  C.  produces  i^int  comment  of 
this  same  Dr.  on  Rom.  6:  3—5,  and  Col.  2:  12,  as  a  proof 
that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  by  immersion.  The 
comment  is  to  the  saine  import  as  the  notes  we  have  exam- 
ined— That  as  it  is  said  in  both  passages,  that  believers 
are  buried  with  Christ,  in  or  by  baptism,  there  is  an  allu 


257 

sion  to  the  mode  which  must  be  immsrsion,  as  ioiUiersion 
is  a  burymg  a  person  in  utiter.  In  order  to  ascertain  the 
truth  or  faisity  of  this  comment,  and  which  is  the  commen* 
of  every  Baptist  v/riter,  we  will  brief! j  examine  Rom.  6: 
3 — 5,  because  it  is  more  full  and  explicit  than  Col.  2:.12| 
and  Jiecaiise  the  observations  which  will  be  made  on  the 
one,,  will  be  applicable  to  the  other. 

InRoiifi.6:  S,  4,  the  apostle  says,  "Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptised  into  Jesus  Christ  y/ere  bap- 
tized into  his  deaths  therefore  we  are  burled  v/ith  hins' d^/ 
baptism  into  deaths  that  like  as  Christ  was.  raised  up  frora 
the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  father,  so  w&  also  shoul(i  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  ^' 

Let  it  be  here  I'ecoUected,  that  the  believer  is  said  to  be 
connected  wiih,  or  united  to  Christ  %  baptism,  in  his  life, 
in  his  death,  and  in  his  burial — *'bafmzed  into  Christ — 
baptized  into  his  death—buried  witK  him  by  baptism."^ 
Now, as  has  bccrifrequenOy  cbserTcd  by  Pedobaptist  wri- 
ters, if  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  mode' of  baptism  m  one 
of  these  expressions,  there  mnst  be  an  allusion  to  it  in  the 
ot'ners:  or  the  mode  of  baptism  must  resembje  Christ's 
life,  death,  and  burial;  but  that  would  prove  too  much  for 
even  Mr.  C.  Besides*  baptism  is  no  where  styled  a  burial. 
The  expression  is' « 'buried  with  him  (Christ)  by  baptism," 
and  the  vv-ords  which  immediately  follow  tell  iis,  that  the 
apostle  had  allusion  to  a  death  to' sin,  and  a  resurrection  to 
spiritual  life,  and  that  baptisra  is  cnie  of  the  means  through 
which  that,  and  the  otlier  blessings  which  accompany  it  are 
often  con ve3!'ed—*^%uried  with  him  by  baptism.*^ 

But  this  is  not  all.  In  the  5thy%v  fsjUowing  verse  the 
apostle  adds|  ^'for  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 
likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  tlie  likeness  of  his 
resurrection.  - '  The  reader  v/ill  have  observed,  that  there 
is  a  direct  allusion  to"  the  death  ii'Cbn*t  i-i  the  word  like- 
ness in  this  verse,  which  word  i-  ii^-i  uoed  l:i  the  preceding 
verses;  and  that  the  believerb'  connection-  with  Christ  by 
baptisiij,  is  expressed  by  the  metaplior  ''planted."  Tiiese 
circumstances  a>  ■  '  '  ^particular  notice;  for  as  the 
acut'e    and  f^ic^.   ,.  .  .'llwardsobserve-s;  since  the 

Baplists  alledgc  that  there  is  an  allusion  "to  the  mode  of 
baptisi^i  in  the  expression  '^buried  with  Christ,"  some  may- 
con' nndwith  greater  plausibility  tn^i plant  ing  is  the  mode, 
l>ccaiise  the  word  ^'fiksncos^^  is  in  the  5th,  and  not  in  the 


:^b6 

4  th  %'ersej  and  sliould  a  contest  arise,  '^'^he  ci  early  SBes  tlia*. 
victor  J  wi)l  crown  the  planters. " 

Since  then  it  is iriily  absurd  to  consider  the  above  pas: 
sage,  as  having  any  cilliision  ^vhatevcr  to  the  mode  of  act- 
ministering  baptisin,  the  reader  may  be  ready  to  ask,  wha.t 
t)ien  is  the  doctrine  taught  therein.  This  v.'e  think — That 
besides  being  the  initiatory  ordinance  into  the  church,  bap- 
tism was  also  designedtobeanieanof  ,^race,  and  is  more- 
over a  sign  of  the  blessina^s  purchased  by  the  life,  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of*  Christ— Tiiat^vheil  the  bapti- 
zed person  has  obtained  the  t'ling  taught  by  the  sign,  the 
renewing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  also  an  exter- 
nal seal  of  his,  or  her  interest  in  those  blessings— It  teach- 
es farther  that  such  are  under  the  strongest  obligation?^  to 
live  a  life  of  holiness.  The  word  'rpLAXTE^"'  teaches  the 
first  of  these  important  lessons.  Tt  is  evidently  borrowed 
from  Isai.  5:  1 — 4,  and  Luke  15:  6 — 9,  in  both  of  which 
passages  the  church  is  lield  out  under  the  alle$>;ory  of  a 
vineyard,  and  the  trees  planted  therein,  as  planted'that  they 
lulglit  bring  forth  fruit.  The  expressions — '-baptized  into 
CMirist — baptized  into  his  death— and  buried  with  him  by 
bnptiam,'*  teach  the  second;  and  tlie  words  that  they 
♦•should  walk  in  newness  of  life,  •'  teach  the  third  of  these 
i rri por tant  i  essons. 

Luke  12:  50,  was  also  adduced  as  an  instance  where 
the  word  "baptism"  cannot  mean  immcrtron — "I  have  a 
h-a]>ti3n»  (bapf'isma)  to  ber  baptized  with,  an;l  liow  am  I 
St? ai^-^Dcd  un<il  it  be  accomplished.-'  It  was  observed  t'uat 
\]\K-  Saviour  in  those  words  aUud^v]  to  ids  feuff^rings — that 
if  the  n'dusion  was  to  the  tears  and  blood  vvhich  he  shed  on 
the  occasion,  it  favours  (he  idea  of  sprinkliuf^,  and  not  of 
im'-iersion — and  if  to  the  wrath  of  the  F.^.ti\er  which  he 
suffered  in  the  stead  of  gaiety  meti,  this  v/rarh  is  always 
represented  as  poured  out;  Jer.  10:  25.  Rev.  15:  1. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  makes  no  direct  reply,  and  says  only  in 
p.  "^rO,  that  Dr.  Campbell  translates  (he  passage  thus— 
'•i  have  an  immersion  to  under;To.r*and  that  Dr.  McKnight 
uanslates  1.  Cor.  15;  29,  "v/hat  shall  v.edowho  arc  bap- 
tized for  the  dead,  if  the  dead'rlse  not"  thus — -**what  shall 
v;e  do  Vvho  are  immersed  in  sufferings  for  the  hope  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not. '^ 

The  s]>ecimen  which  we  have  had  of  Dr.  McKniglit's  ana- 
logical tai^.nts,  is  not  calculated  to  inspire  much  confidence 
in  his  philological  acumen  and  skill.     We  s/i^-// therefore 


2S9 

pass  him  by  with  this  observation;  that  the  translation 
which  he  has  given  to  1.  Cor.  15:  29,  is  very  ditfe rent 
from  the  interpretation  wliich  Mr.  C.  has  given  us  of  it  in 
p.  209  of  his  debate  with  Mr.  W.  and  overturns  his  sup- 
posed strong  argiinient  for  immersion,  deduced  from  that 
passage. 

That  Dr.  Campbell  was  possessed  of  extensive  philologi- 
cal knowledge,  and  that  this  knovv'ledge  was  generally, 
correct,  is  readily  admitted.  But  we  have  shewn,  from 
more  than  one  instance  that  he  was  mistaken  in  regard  to 
tlie  fill  I  meaning  of  baplo^  bapiizo.  and  haptisma.  That  the 
last  of  these  words  is  used  figuratively  in  Luke  12:  50,  and 
that  it  has  reference  to  the  sutferings  of  Christ  is  certain. 
But  the  question  is,  whether  there  is  an  allusion  in  those 
sufferings  to  inmiersion,  or  pouring  out,  or  sprinkling:  or  in 
otlier  w  ords,  is  Christ  represented  in  the  passage  as  im- 
mersed in  his  tears  and  blood,  or  sprinkled  with  them;  or 
are  the  vials  of  his  father's  wrath  represented  in  the  scrip- 
tures as  poured  out  on  him,  or  he  immersed  in  them.  This 
is  the  question,  and  every  thing  else  is  foreign,  and  design- 
ed to  divert  the  mind  of  the  reader  from  the  point  in  hand, 
I  need  scarcely  repeat  it,  that  Jesus  could  not  be  immersed 
in  his  own  tears  and  blood;  and  to  the  passa^-es  adduced 
which  represent  the  wrath  of  God  as  poured  out,  others 
could  be  added.  Then,  as  Christ  in  the  passage  alludes  to 
his  suSerings,  we  conclude  that  in  the  v/ord  ''^bapiistna,^^ 
there  is  an  allusion  to  sprinkling,  or  pouring  out,  and  not 
to  immersion— Let  Mr.  C.  nov»' shew  the  reverse  if  he  can. 

1  Cor.  1-2:  13,  v/as  adduced  as  another  instance  where 
the  w^ord  "baptized''  is  used  to  signify  to  pour  cut,  or  to 
sprinkle:  "For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  (ebaptis- 
Ihem.en)  into  one  body,  whether  vi-e  be  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
or  whether  we  be  bond  or  free,  and  have  been  all  made  to 
drink  into  one  spirit."  It  was  observed,  that  by  the  "one 
body"  in  this  passage  true  believers  are  meant,  who  are 
elsewhere  stiled  ''The  Body  of  CHPasT"— -That  true  be- 
lievers aie  said  to  be  baptized  into  tliis  body  by  "the  one 
spirit" — -and  as  the  spirit's  influences  are  said  to  be  poured 
out,  or  sprinkled  upon;  the  word  "baptized"  must  there- 
fore have  an  allusion  to  pouring  out  or  sprinkling,  and  not 
to  immersion. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  replies  i|i  p.  356,  that  the  apostle  had 
reference  ir.  this  passage  "to  miraculous,  and  not  to  the 
ordinar}^  iniiuences  of  the  spirit*"      Be  it  so,  these  iriira- 


-^40 

culous  influences  are  said  in  JoePs  prophecy  to  be  "pouretl 
Gilt,-'  a-nd  proves  all  that  I  desired  Co  prove.  I  would  how- 
ever fartlier  remark,  that  when  Mr.  C.  said  that  the  apos- 
tle had  reference  in  the  passage  under  consideration  to  the 
extraordinary  influences  of  the  spiiit,  he  said  the  truth,  but" 
not  the  v.'hole  truth.  That  The  apostle  had  reference  also 
to  the  ordinary  iniiuences  of  the  spirit  is  evident  (i'oin  the 
preceding  context.  '  'To  one  (says  he)  is  given  by  the  spir- 
it the  v;ord  of  icisdom;  to  another  the  v/ord  of  knowledge; 
to  ancther/ai7A  hj  the  same  spirit:*'  as  well  as  "the  gifts 
of  healing — the  v/orking  -of  miracles — prophecy — discern- 
ing of  spirits — diverse  tongues — and  the  interpretation  of 
tongues."  Now,  the  giving  of  both  of  these  is  called  abeing 
"baptized  into  one  body  by  the  one  spirit j*'  and  as  has 
been  already  observed,  these,  and  all  other  illuminating 
and  sanctifying  iniiuences  are  said  to  be  poured  out,  or 
sprinkled  upon  the  subjects- — "I  v/ill  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you  and  ye  shall  be  clean 5  I  will  put  my  spirit  w^ithin 
you' ^— "and  I  v/ill  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  your  seed,  and 
my  blessing  upon  your  oif-pring.^' 

It  would  seem  that  Mr.  C.  was  conscious  of  the  weak- 
ness of  his  objection,  and  that  the  foregoing  passages,  and 
others  of  a  similar  im}x>rt  miglit  be  arrayed  against  him,  and 
therefore  he  says  in  p.  S03,  "that  neither  the  descending, 
nor  pouring  out,  nor  coming  upon  of  the  spirit  on  the  Jews 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  on  the  Gentiles  in  the  house  of 
Cornelius,  are  called  their  baptism,  or  the  baptism  of  the 
spirit,  but  their  being  put  under  its  infiu-ences."  Now,  it 
is  not  said  of  the  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  nor  of  the 
Gentiles  who  were  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  that  they 
were  put  under  {}".&  spirit's  influences 5  and  farther,  there 
is  no  such  phraseology  in  all  the  word  of  God.  It  is  said 
of  the  fvirmer  that  the  spirit's  influences  were,  ^^sheddown'^' 
upon  them;  and  that  they  v/ere  "fdled  with  the  Holy  Ghost;" 
and  of  the  latter  it  is  said,  "that  the  Holy  Ghost/e//on  ail 
them  that  heard  the  word. " 

And  as  if  he  forsavr  this  reply,  and  as  a  last  resort,  he  says 
in  p.  343,  "that  christian  baptism  was  not  at  all  emblemat- 
ical of  the  spirit's  operations,  but  refers  to  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  v/as  administered  for  that  purpose." — That  it 
has  reference  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  was,  and  is  to 
be  administered  for  that  purpose  is  admitted,  but  not  "as  a 
purgation  of  sins,"  as  be  impiously  afBrmsi  but  as  a  mean 
through  which  those  influences  of  the  spirit  which  regener- 


241 

ate  the  soul,  and  work  that  faith  v/hich  apprehends  the 
blood  of  Christ  for  pardon,  are  often  conveyed.  This  is 
evident  from  what  Peter  sa.id  on  the  day  of  Pentecost — 
''Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  MiA  f<i  shall  receive  th$  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  This,  in  tlie  passage  which  we  are  ex- 
amining is  styled  a  being  "baptized  by  one  spirit;-'  and  I 
knew  of  no  consistent  interpretation  which  can  be  given 
to  the  expression  but  this — that  as  in  baptism  the  water  is 
poured  out  on  the  body,  so,  the  spirit's  influences  are  pour- 
ed out  on  those  baptized  persons  whom  God  designed  to 
regenerate,  in  consequence  of  which  they  become  members 
of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ. 

And  yet  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  observe  here,  that  in  the 
debate  with  Mr.  V/.  Mr.  C.  acknowledges  more  than 
once,  that  baptism  is  emblematical  of  the  spirit's  influen- 
ces. In  p.  136,  [9A.  Edit.)  he  says,  "I  deny  that  baptism 
has  a  reference  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  but  that  it  de- 
notes the  Vv'ashing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost" — '"and  when  baptism  is  spoken  of  in  relation 
to  the  influences  of  the  Holy  vSpirit,  it  denotes  the  over- 
whebning  influences  of  tliat  Almighty  agent,  in  conse 
qiience  of  which  all  the  fiiculties  of  the  mind  are  imbued  by 
it.-'  But  why  deny  it  in  the  debate  with  Mr.  Macalla.  I 
know  not,  unless  that  he  saw  that  to  admit  it,  the  word 
"baptized"  in  the  above  passage,  unequivocally  proved 
thr.t  the  water  is  to  be  poured  out  on  the  body,  as  signifi- 
cative of  the  spirit's  influences  when  poured  out  on  the 
^oul.  He  felt  the  baptist  system  to  be  perishing  in  his 
hands,  and  to  keep  it  alive  as  long  as  possible,  and  to  sup- 
port the  spirits  of  his  friends  and  followers,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  contradict  himself  in  the  most  palpable  manner, 
and  to  contradict  a  position  which  we  have  shewn  is  re- 
vealed in  the  clearest  manner  in  the  word  of  God. 

But  desperate  as  we  ha,ve  shewn  the  Baptist  cause  is  in 
the  hands  of  Mr.  C.  our  remarks  on  his  remaining  argu- 
ments v^'ill  exhibit  it  in  a  still  more  desperate  situation,  ^r 
rather  in.  its  la-st  gasp.  It  appears  from  p.  309,  chat  Mp* 
M.  commenced  his  remarks  on  the  Greek  prepositions  en, 
ris,  -EK,  and  apo,  which  are  connected  with  haptisma^  hap- 
tlzo^  and  other  words  and  things  in  the  old  and  new  tes- 
tament.    He  shewed  from  Parkhurst,  one  of  Mr.  C's 

"Ti  authorities,  and  also  by  a  considerable  detail  from  J. 
<29 


242, 

V.  GampbelPs  book  in  answer  to  Mr.  Jories,  that  en  in  a 
number  of  places  in  the  Septuagint  and  Greek  testament, 
njeans,  and  cannot  but  mean,  at,  near,  with,  by,  ainong, 
ivhereas,  because,  &c.  as  well  as  in.  To  which  I  would 
add,  that  Buck  in  his  Theological  Dictionary,  observes  on 
the  word  baptism,  "that  ex  in  more  llian  one  hundred 
times  in  the  new  testament  is  rendered  af,  and  in  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  others  it  is  translated  icith.^^  Mr.  M.  has 
also  shewn  from  the  same  authorities,  that  eis  is  used  in" 
Bo  less  than  eighteen  dift'erent  meanings;  and  in  p.  SI 8 
that  Parkhurst  has  given  seven  different  meanings  for 
EK,  and  fifteen  for  apo.  And  what  now  is  Mr.  C's  answer 
to  all  this?  An  assertion  in  p.  313^  repeated  in  p.  323,  on 
the  authority  of  Horne  1'ooke,  that  prepositions  have  but 
one  meaning,  or  that  all  the  different  meanings  ascribed . 
to  them,  may  be  resolved  into  what  he  says  is  their  pri- 
mary meaning;  after  which  we  have  a  pedantic  display  of 
the  number  of  times  en  is  translated  in^  eis  into,  ek  out 
of,  and  APO  out  of,  and  from,  in  the  Septuagint  and  the 
the  Greek  testament. 

Tooke's  theory  of  prepositions  regards  those  of  the  En- 
glish and  not  of  the  Greek  lanouage.  It  is  indeed  an  in- 
genious theory;  but  it  is  tkouglit  by  many  to  be  more  in- 
genious than  solid,  in  a  number  of  instances.  And  ad- 
mitting it  to  be  correct,  before  it  could  be  of  any  service 
to  him,  Mr.  C.  should  have  shewn,  that  tlie  origin  of  the 
Greek  prepositions  v»as  the  same  as  that  vviiicli  his  autlior 
has  ascribed  to  those  of  the  English  language."^     This  he 

*In  his  **DJVERsi03fs  orPmi-ET,"  IIonxE  Tooxr.  says,  that  the 
prepositions  of  the  English  kngiiag-e  are  corrup'.ed  verbs  or  nouns 
of  the  several  languages  of  which  it  is  composed,  and  that  the}' 
still  retain  the  meaning  of  the  words  from  v^-hich  tliey  are  derived, 
lie  has  indeed  succeeded  in  tracing  some  of  them  to  their  origin, 
and  shewn -sthe  similarity  in  sound  and  spelling  to  the  words 
whence  they  are  sprung;  but  in  my  opinion,  lie'  has  failed  with 
respect  to  others.  As  for  the  prepositions  in,  out,  on,  off,  anclfff, 
he  confesses  that  he  cannot  oficr  any  thing  that  is  satisfactory  to 
him.self.  He  says  indeed  that  in  may  be  derived  from  the  Gothic 
Anglo-Sa!ton  word  that  signifies  **the  inv/ard  part  of  the  body; 
and  out  from  a  word  that  originally  slg'nifies  the  skin;"  but  he 
does  not  positively  say  that  this  is  tlie  case.  As  for  o»,  off,  and  ai, 
he  candidly  confesses  that  he  is  unable  to  trace  their  origin  to 
iany  noun  or  ^'erb  whatever.  As  Mr.  C.  has  transferred  Tookl's 
theory  of  the  English  to' the  Greek  prepositions,  it  is  now  incum* 
bent  upon  him  to  produce  the  verbs  or  nouns  from  which  ek,  r,}s» 
BK.  and  APO  are  sprung',  and  to  shew  that  tbev  still  ret^n  tVie 


-;13  not  even  attempted,  but  grataitoiisly  tranaferroti'' his 
author's  theorj  of  the  one  to  the  other,  and  therefore  the 
theory  tliat  Greek  prepositions  have  but  one  meaning  is  to 
be  considered *as  his  own.  Now,  that  you  may  see  the 
absurdity  of  this  nev/  theory  which  he  has  assumed  for  the 
purpose  of  propping  up  the  Baptist  system  which  he  felt 
was  sinking  under  his  feet,  I  will  place  before  you  a  fe\v 
instaiices  out  of  many  in  the  Greek  Testament  where  the 
above  prepositions  are  used,  but  which  he  says  may  be  all 
resolved  into  their  primary  meaning.  But  before  I  do 
tliis  it  will  be  necessary  to  remind  you,  that  according  to 
Mr.  C's  theory  in  is  the  primary  meaning  of  t.s,  in^j  of 
Kis,  oui  of  of  EK,  ^Ti(V out  of  and  fro?n  of  apo.  And  1st 
of  ex;  Mat.  3:  11,  *'He  shall  baptize  you  ?jcith  (en)  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  zi'i'A  fire — New  theory;  "He  shall  im- 
merse you  in  the  Holy  Gnost,  and  in  fire."  Mat.  12:  27; 
"If  I  %  (en)  Bekebui)  cast  out  deviis — New  theory:  "If  i 
in  Belzebiib  cast  out  de\iis."  Ileb.  12:  2;  '*And  is  set 
down  af  (ex)  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God — ^Nev/ 
theory;  "Is  set  down  i/i  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 
God.*'  2dly  of  Eis;  John  2:  2;  "And  both  Jesus  was  cal- 
led and  his  disciples  to  (eis)  the  marriage— New  theory; 
^*were  called  into  tl^  marriage."  John  11:  52;  "She  fell 
down  G*  (eis)  Jesus"  feet" — ^I>ew  theory:  "jhe  felk  down 
into  Jesus'  feet."  Mat  15:  24;  "I  am  not  sent  hut  unto 
(eis)  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel'^ — ^Nev/  theory; 
"Sent  into  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  Sdly  cf 
j^tt;  Jrtim  il-  fifi;  ^^From  (es)  that  time  many  of  his  disciples 
went  back.  "—New  theory;  ^-Out  q/'ibst  time  many  of  his 
disciples  went  back. "  Acts  2:  34:  "The  Lord  said  unto 
my  Lord  sit  thou  at  (ek)  my  rif^ht  hand" — New  theory; 
"Sit  o^.'f  o/'my  nghthaVxd."  ''4thly  of  apo;  Mat.  18:  8;  "If 
thy  hand  or  thy  foat  oft'end  thee  cut  them  o3'and  cast  them 

meaning^  of  those  verbs  or  nouns;  and  that  this  meaning-  is  but 
otie,  and  the  meaning  which  he  ascribes  to  thera  severally.-  And 
no^  only  is  this  incumbent  upon  iiim  in  defence  of  hb  very  last 
argument  for  immersion,  but  he  must  p^  ove  that  the  Evangehsts, 
and  the  Jews,  and  the  Greeks  in  genera],  were  so  skilled  in  ety- 
mology as  to  know  that  ex  signified  in,  r.is  hifo,  ek  ovi  of,  and 
APO  out  qfand/ro/^j,  and  nothing  else.  "Hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est," 
•—It  will  be  a  very  acceptable  present  to  the  Baptist  church,  pro- 
vided he  succeeds.  He  may  style  his  disquisitions  on  this  point, 
"The  Div^ERsiONs  of  B aFFALo ;"  for  I  do  not  sec  any  reason  why 
America  may  not  have  her  ^^Dlver.v.ons  of  JBuffcdoi^  as  well  as 
England  IicT  ''Bi  versions  of  Fur  lei/," 


M4 

'w  .    ' 

froni  (Apo)  thee"— New  aieorvj  "cast  them  out  0/  ttiee,''' 

and  that  too  after  they  had  been  cut.  off.     Mat.  7:  15% 

* 'Beware  of  (avo)  false  prophets" — -New  theory 5 ''Beware 

0?/^  0/* false  prophets."  •        - 

From  the  foregoing  examples  and  others  which  might  be 
adduced,  you  will  see  not  only  the  absurdity  of  this  new 
theory  in  regard  to  the  above  prepositions,  but  the  misera- 
ble sophistry  which  Mr.  C.  exhibits  in  p..  327,  where  be 
«ays,  "that  if  en  does  not  certainly  denote  ir),  Adam  nev- 
er was  in  Eden — that  if  ek  dees  not  signify  out  of.  Eve 
was  not  taken  cirl  o/'arib,  taken  out  of  Adam — that  if  eis 
doe?  not  most  certainly  and  definitely  denote  iiito^  breath 
cf  life  never  entered  mfo  the  nostrils  of  Adam — and  that 
if  EK  and  apo  did  not  bring  Noah  and  his  house  out  of  and 
from  the  ark,  there  tliey  remain  until  this  day. "  En  does 
indeed  signify  in^  eis  info,  ek  out  of  and  APo/rcr;i  in 
those  places  and  many  more,  but  I  have  shewn  how  absurd 
and  ridiculous  it  would  be  to  attach  this  meaning  to  them 
in  every  place  where  they  occur  in  the  Septuadnt  and  the 
Greek  Testament.  Ycu  must  have  also  seen  the  absurdity 
and  silliness  of  the  objection  in  p  515,  that  to  translate 
EN  by  «/,  7iear,  nl^h;  eis  by  /c,  unto;  and  ek  and  afo  by 
from^  would  in  m.any  instances  lead  to  Arianism.,  Socinian- 
ism,  and  other  eiTors  and  absurdities.  It  v.'ould  so,  but; 
who  but  Mr.  C.  ever  thought  of  giving  them  but  one  mean- 
ing, the  absurdity  of  v.hich  i  have  just  now  shewn. 

But  you  may  be  now  ready  to  ask,  is  there  any  rule  for 
ascertaining  the  meaning  of  these  prepositions  wjien  tlie!^ 
occur  in  tl^e  ccrlEturesi  i^.oA  if  any,  Tsliat  is  it?  None,  but 
what. arises  from  the  context^  or  frcin  the  design  cf  the 
speaker  or  writer,  and  the  character  and  circumstances  of 
the  persons  addressed.  This,  Mr.  C.  mentions  in  p.  323 
as  the  rule  laid  down  by  Mr.  Harris  the  Etymologist,  and 
it  is  the  rule  of  common  sense;  but  instead  of  adopting  it, 
he  has  recourse  to  the  above  absurd  theory,  and  wh.y  he  has 
recourse  to  it  is  easy  to  see — Something  was  to  be  done  to 
prop  up  the  totterino;  fabric  of  the  Baptist  system. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  the  4th  letter  I  have  exam- 
ined all  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
shewed,  that  the  circumstances  attending  them  convey 
the  idea  that  they  were  administered  by  p.tfusion  and  not 
by  immersion.  "^The  baptism  of  the  Jews  by  John  w'a^ 
first  examined,  as  being  the  frst  in  the  order  of  time. 
'  Among  other  arguments  that  John  poured  the  water  on  tho. 


£45 

riubjects  it  was  ob52rved,  that  according  to  the  account  oi 
Josephus  their  own  historian,  there  must  have  been  four  or 
five  millions  of  inhabitants  in  Judea  at  that  time^ — that  ad- 
niitting  there  was  only  one  million  of  them  baptized  by 
John,  (although  the  sacred  text  conveys  the  idea  that  the 
greatest  number  of  them  were  baptized  by  him)  it  was 
asked  if  it  was  possible  for  him  to  baptize  by  immersion 
one  miilioa,  or  near  one  million,  in  the  space  of  two 
years,  the  longest  time  assigned  to  his  ministry  by  the 
best  .chronologists-— ''but  that  it  v»^a3  practicable  by  affu- 
sion, and  on  the  supposition  that  a  number  of  them  stood 
before  him  in  ranks,  and  that  he  poured  the  water  upon 
them  from  his  hand,  or  from  some  suitable  vessel/' 

Mr.  C's  reply  to  this  is  truly  astonising;  especially  as  it 
comes  from  a  man  who  is  constantly  calling  out  misrepre- 
sentation, misrepresentation.  In  a  note  in  p.  320,  he  says 
— '^To  this  most  absurd  hypothesis  of  a  wholesale  bap- 
tism, or  a  baptism  of  crowds  in  a  mass  by  means  of  some 
suitable  squirt  or  vessel  which  might  extend  to  fifty  or  a 
liundred  at  one  discharge,  we  know  not  what  to  say.  It 
appears  to  be  an  act  of  degradation  to  notice  such, puerili- 
ties—O  Pedobaptism  hov/  art  thou  fallen!!*' 

Novv'  reader,  whether  Baptist,  or  Pedobaptist,  I  ap- 
peal to  you,  if  I  have  said  or  insinuatecUany  thing  about 
*Yf  squirt'^  that  might  extend  to  fifty  or  an  hundred  at  once^ 
or  if  there  was  any  thing  ludicrous  in  representing  the 
Baptist  as  pouring  the- water  from  his  hand,  or  from  some 
suitable  vessel  on  the  ranks  of  the  Jews  as  he  passed  along 
those  ranks.  I  will  only  say,  that  the  system  must  be  ''fal- 
len" indeed,  where  its  champion  who  has  defied  all  Chris- 
tendom, must  resort  to  such  bare-faced  and  impudent 
falsehoods  to  support  it. 

The  second  instance  of  baptism  was  that  of  the  3000  Jews 
on  the  daj  of  Pentecost,  and  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  It 
was  observed  in  the  3d  letter,  that  from  the  time  Peter  end- 
ed his  sermon,  there  were  only  7  or  8  hours  of  the  Jewish 
day  remaining;  and  that  there  was  not  time  for  the  twelve 
to  take  a  profession  of  faith  from  3000  persons,  so  as  to  ob- 
tain a  satisfactory  hope  that  they  v/ere  true  believers,  ac- 
cording to  the  practice  of  the  Baptist  church,  and  to  bap- 
tize them  the  same  day  by  immersion.  It  was  also  asked 
^vhere  the  water  v/as  to  be  had  for  that  purpose,  as  there 
was  no  river  near  the  city,  and  the  brook  Keiroa  was  very 


246 

small,  and  destitute  of  water  a  great  part  of  the  year— Arid 
that  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  tiiat  tiie  chief  priests  would 
admit  them  into  the  temple  to  use  the  molten  seajbut  that 
they  could  have  been  baptized  in  the  place  where  they  had 
met,  and  without  confusion,  and  with  a  fev,^  quarts  of  water, 
if  done  by  affusion. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  replies  in  p.  £55— '^That  there  are  well 
attested  facts  of  60  persons  being  immersed  in  SO  minutes.^ 
or  in  that  proportion,  ^\  hen  the  baptizer  simpiy  immersed 
those  led  into  the  pool  or  bath,  or  river  to  him-— that  tlie 
iwel7e  would  have  baptized  the  3000  in  little  more  than 
5  hours 5  and  if  there  v/ere  60  or  70  baptizers  the  whole 
number  ^^ould  have  been  baptized  in  little  more  than  an 
haur — and  that  we  read  of  pools  or  baths  of  water  in  Jeru- 
salem, for  the  purpose  cf  the  citizens  immersing  them- 
selves." 

To  this  it  may  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  those  who  please 
may  believe  the  first  assertion — ^^credat  Judoeais  Apcila.** 
The  soipposition  that  tiiere  were  60  or  70  baptizers,  is  aj- 
together  groundless,  as  none  but  the  twelve  %vere  then 
commissioned  to  baptize.  As  already  observed,  Mr.  C\ 
has  made  no  allowance  of  time  for  hearing  the  experience^ 
and  receiving  the  profession  of  faith  of  the  2000  according 
to  the  practice  cf  the  Baptist  church.  He  has  not  proved, 
and  we  are  sure  cannot  prove  from  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusaieiu  had  th.en  pools  or  batiis 
of  water  for  immersing  themselves.  And  admitting  that 
they  had,  the  3000  on  this  hypothesis  must  have  gone 
with  their  baptizers  to  different  parts  of  the  city  for  the 
purpose  of  being  immersed j  a  city  too,  whose  inhabitants 
were  then  hcstde  to  Christ  and  his  followers.  Besides,  it 
is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  the  5000,  many  of  whom  were 
strangers,  brought  a  change  of  raiment  with  them,  and  de- 
cency forbade  their  being  baptized  .in  a  state  of  nudity. 
And  to  this  I  will  only  add,  that  there  is  not  the  least  hint 
that  they  v,  ent  from  the  place  where  they  had  assembled 
until  after  their  Baptism.  The  reader  has  now  the  prin- 
cipal arguments  on  both  sides  in  regard  to  this  point,  and 
will  decide  for  himself  whether  the  3000  were  baptized  by 
immersion  or  attusion. 

To  what  I  have  said  on  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  (Acts 
8:  38)  Mr.  C.  replies  in  p.  S4S,  oy  giving  us  a  translation 
of  that  interesting  passage,  anil  vhich  he  says  *'he  is  ready 
lo  defend  against  all  objections.-'     I  iiave  however  a  fev/ 


objeciioiis  to  this  translatlori,  and  wtiich  I  request  hirn  to 
yo'lve  if  he  can.  My  principal  objection  respects  ihe  clause 
^^qjiii  hxidor^^  m  the  S6Th  verse,  and  vvliich  he,  renders  "to 
a  certain  waterj^'  after  wtiich  he  translates  the  S8th  verse 
ihUs— -"And  they  descended,  or  rvent  down,  not  ejd  to, 
but  eis  into  the  v.ater,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  lie 
immersed  hira^  and  thev  went  up  ek  out  of,  and  not  uom 
the  water." 

It  may  s'dflice  to  say.  that  the  argument  for  immersion 
deduced' from  this  translation  is  founded  on  an  ignorance 
of  the  Greek  language,  and  a  false  assumption:  neither  of 
which  are  unfrcqiient  in  Mr.  C's  writings.  The  preposi- 
tion epi  diS  ScHREVELius  observes  in  his  Lexicon,  v^'hen 
governing  a  genitive  case  signifies  m,  to,  above,  before; 
but  v/Ken  governing  an  accusative  case,  it  signifies  above, 
against,  ikrough,  by.  There  may  be  instances  v/here  it 
Signilies  to  before  an  accusative  case,  h\xt  above  is  its  usu- 
al signification.  Now  the  v/crds  ii  kiidor  are  in  the  accu- 
sative case 5  the  clause  therefore  literally  means,  ''tliey 
came  above  a  certain  waterf'  which  is  confirmed  by  the 
circumstance  that  according  to  the  narrative,  both  Philip 
and  the  Eunucli  were  as  yet  in  i}AQ  chariot j*  the  water  con- 
sequently lay  beneath  them,  v/hither  the  road  lay  on  a 
higher,  or  on  the  very  ground  where  the  water  v/as. 

!*lr.C.  also  assumes  in  his  translation  of  this  passage, 
that  Kis  and  ek,  have  only  one  meaning,  and  that  baptizo 
signilies  to  iimnerse,  and  to  immerse  only;  but  I  trust  that 
1  have  shewn  -Cue  absurdity  of  the  one,  and  the  falsity  of 
the  other.  The  above  Lexicographer  gives  to  as  the  iirst, 
and  i?i  and  into  as  the  second  meaning  of  eisj  and  tliere- 
fore  the  38th  verse  may,  and  I  arn  persuaded  ought  to  have 
been  translated  thus— "And  they  went  down  to  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized,  or  poured 
water  upon  him,"  and  they  came  iiip  front  the  water;  for  L 
have  shewn  that  ek  signifies /ro??2,  as  well  as  out  of. 

And  here  it  may  not  be  unnecessary  to  observe,  that 
■when  Eis  is  used  to  signify  to  enter  into  a  place,  it  is  pre- 
fixed to  the  verb  that  denotes  the  entrance,  as  well  as  to 
the  place  entered  into.  Thus  in  Mat.  8:  5,  where  it  is  said 
that  Jesus  entered  into  Capernaum,  it  is — eiselihe  eis  Ka~ 
pernaum.''^  In  chap.  12:4,  where  Christ  speaks  of  Da- 
vid entering  into  the  house  of  God,  it  k—'^eiselthen  eis  ton 
oikon  theou,^^  In  chap.  24:  S8,  where  Christ  also  speaks 
-of  Noah  entering  into  the  ark,  it  h—^^eiselthe  Noe,  eis  ton 


Mb 

Klbboion,^^  The  saine  phraseology  is  used  ia  Luke  1;  40 
— 7:  44— IT: '22,  and  various  other  places j  but  when  eis 
is  used  to  signify  merely  motion  to  a])lace,  it  is  seldom,  if 
ever  prefixed  to  the  verb,  and  this  is  the  case  in  the  pas- 
sage we  are  nov/  examining.  Mr.  C.  does  indeed  say,  that 
the  prepositions  kata,  down,  afid  ana,  v.p,  prefixed  to  the 
^'iivbhaino  in  this  passage,  ''add  very  much  to  the  ernpha- 
gIs  of  the  narrative,  ^nd  confivms  the  rendering  of  the 
present  translation  as  just  and  literal.  But  how  they  add 
miy  emphasis  to  the  verb  haino^  is  I  confess,  what  I  can- 
not see.  Balno  signifies  simply  to  go,  and  katabcdno  to 
go  dovv'D,  and  anabaino  to  go  up,  neither  of  which  ideas 
could  have  been  expressed  by  haino  itself;  and  it  camiot 
but  occur  to  the  weakest  reader,  that  under  the  circum- 
stances he  was  then  in,  the. Eunuch  must  go  dov/n  from 
the  chariot  to  the  water,  if  he  v/ould  be  baptized;  and  in 
order  to  proceed  on  his  journey  lie  must  go  up  from  the 
water  to  the  chariot. 

But  besides  this,  the  diminutive  adjective  rt  being  pre- 
fixed to  hudor  demands  the  translation  which  1  have 
given  to  the  passage.  Dr.  Guyse  in  a  note  on  the  passage 
observes,  that  Jerome,  Sandys,  and  other  travellers  who 
visited  the  place  say,  that  this  fi  hudor  is  a,  spring  or 
fountain  which  rises  at  the  foot  of  a  mountain  in  the  tribe 
of  Judah  or  Eenjamin,  v/hose  waters  arc  sucked  in  by  the 
ground  that  produces  them.  Then,  according  to  the  re- 
port oftliose  travellers,  the  presumption  is,  that  there  was 
not  a  sufficiency  of  water  for  baptizing  the  Eunuch  by  im- 
mersion, but  doubtless,  enough  to  baptizehim  by  aifusion; 
and  this  accounts  for  the  diminutive  expression  ii  hudor, 
''a  certain  water,"  oi"  as  it  inav  be  translated  ''some  water." 
And  what  now  does  Mr.  C-  offer  against  all  these  mutually 
corroborating  circumstances,  that  the  Eunuch  was  bapti- 
zed by  aiTusion — A  false  translation,  and  a  false  assump- 
tion— Let  him  now  defend  his  translation  if  he  can. 

The  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  and  of  Saul 
of  Tarsu s  were  next  examineiL  YV^ith  regard  to  Cornelius 
and  his  friends  it  was  observed  in  the  8th  letier,  that  the 
words,  "can  any  man  Ibrbid  Vv'ater  that  these  should  not 
be  baptized,"  to  myself  convey  the  idea,  that  the  water 
was  brought  into  the  house  or  apartment  where  they  were, 
and  exclude  the  idea  that  they  were  immersed.  In  reply 
Mr.  C.  interprets  the  passage  thus — ''Can  any  Jew  forbitl 
water  ta  these  Gentil  cs ."     I  do  not  say  that  this  interpret  a 


tion  is  wrong  as  far  ^s  it  goes;  but  I  think  that  tlie  idea 
which  I  have  mentioned,  is  also  clearly  implied.  To  this 
I  would  add,  i;hat  there" is  not  the  least  hint  orintimatiori, 
of  any  "pool  or  ba^h"in  the  house  vdiere  they  Vv^ere,  suita- 
ble for  iraniersion^  or  that  they  left  the  house  for  the  pur- 
pose of  being  baptized.  The  narrative  is  concise  and  rap- 
id, clearly  conveying  the  idea,  tliat  they  v/ere  immediately 
baptized  on  their  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost.  .     " 

With  respect  to  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  it  was 
♦observed  in  the  4t'h  letter  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house 
of  Judas,  and  immediately  after  he  received  his  sight.  In 
the  close  cf  the  7th  letter  it  vva?.  farther  observed,  that  ilio, 
Greek  words  ^^anastas  haptisaP  in  Acts  22:  16,  which  are 
translated  "arise  and  be  baptized^  literally  mean,  "stan- 
ding up,  be  baptised."  In  chap.  9:  18,  where  we  have 
an  account  of  this  baptism,  the  words  are  ''•kai  anasfas 
ebaptistke^^^  which  afe  also  translated,  "and  he  arose  and 
was  baptized^butwhich  literally,  mean,  "and  standing  up, 
he  was  baptized 5"  from  which  the  consequence  was  drawn, 
tliat  Saul  was  in  a  standing  posture  at  the  time  th'e  ordi- 
nance was  administered  unto  him.  And  here  again  I 
would  observe,  that  the  translators  seem  to  have  been 
aware,  that  to  translate  these  passages  'literally  would 
have  conveyed  the  idea,  as  .they  do,  that  Saul  was  bapti- 
zed by  alFusion  or  sprinkling;  and  as  if  to  keej)  this  idea 
out  of  the  view  of  the  English  reader  they  have  translated 
them  so  as  to  convey  the  idea  of  SauPs  rising  up  from  his 
seat  or  conrh  foi-  the  purpose  of  going  to  another  place  for 
the  purpose  of  being  baptized  |  although  in  doing  solhey 
were  obliged  to  use  a  supplementary  and  unnecessary  and 
in  both  passagesi  nor  have  they  marked  them  as  supple- 
mentary words. 

It  has  been  observed  in  the  preceding  letter,  what  I  am 
persuaded  every  reader  of  Mr.  Cs  v>^riting3  must  liave  ob- 
served, that  one  feature  of  his  character  as  a  disputant  is— 
tiiat  whenever  his  opponent  lias  advanced  an  argument 
which  he  cannot  ansvvcr,  he  treats  him  v/ilh  the  utmost 
contempt,  and  his  argument  as  a  puerility  not  worthy  of' 
notice.  We  have  noticed  several' instances  of  this  in  the 
preceding  letters,  and  v/e  have  another  in  regard  to  the 
passage  now  under  examination.  In  p.  332,  he  treats  the 
tbregoing  observations  respecting  the  participle  anastas, 
"standing  up,"  "as  one  of'those'Pedobaptist  boyisms  that 
are  not  half' so  feasible  m  the  arsuments  in  favour  of 


tranSubstaiitiatio::,  .of  purgatory,  of  S'jcinvauisinjof  Aiiun 
ism,  of  praying  to  the  Virgiii  Mary,  of  dbing  penances  by 
ioiig  faatings  and  pilgrimages.''  In  p.  347,  he  resuj^cie*^ 
t'le  subject,  anthnoJestly  adds,  "that  a^erson  v/ho  has  de- 
voted his  whole  life  to-study  could  gain  very  little  applause 
from  a  triumph  gained  over  such  criticism  as  h  genrerally 
detailed  by  Pedobaptis t  critics. "  '^  VvHiat  honour  (he  asks) 
could  be  gained  by  sucli  a.n  encounter  with  a  gentleman,  a 
reputed  iin.^Uist  too,  vvho  like  Mr.  M.  ansi  Mr.  Ealstou 
could  bring  forward  anasi'as  in  the  case  of  Paul  as  a  proof 
that  lie  was  sprinkled,  ''he  arose  and  v/as  immersed.  A 
v.'crd  used  a  tliousand  times  to  denote  the  tirst  eSbrt,  or 
tlie  first  stage  of  process  to  any  object." 

I  am  persuaded  that  liiere  is  not  a  reader  learned  or  un- 
learned, but  must  be  disa;usted  with  this  sh;iu\eiess  self- 
eulogy,  so  contrary  to  tlie  advice  of  the  v/ise  man — '*Let 
another  praise  thee,  and  not  thy  ovrn  mouth  "  But  pas- 
sing this  by,  i  vvouid  observe,  that  it  is  admitted  that  the 
participle  anastas  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  a  person- ;s 
arising  from  his  seat  for  the  purpose  of  going  to  anoflier 
place:  but  when  it  is  so  used,  tl\^  design  is  mentioned.  In 
this  sense  it  is  used  in  Lulce  15:  18,  where  the  prodigai 
son  says,  '^nasfai  jiorftasomm  pros  fo?i  poJera  mvu,  which 
literally  means,  "rising  up  I  will  go  to  my  father?"  and  this 
wall  the  20th  verse  are  all  the  places  which  I  recollect 
where  it  is  so  used  in  the  New  Testament.  But  that  it  is 
used,  and  frequently  used,  to  denote  a  person's  arising  for 
the  purpose  of  standing,  and  without  any  design  of  going 
to  another  place  at  that  lime,  I  shall  now  prove  beyond  all 
centrndictiuu.  And  when  I  shall  have  proved  this,  I 
shall  have  established  the  afxirmation  that  SauV  was  bap- 
tized In  a  standing  posture,  unless  it  is  proved  that  he 
arose  to  go  to  another  place  for  that  purpose.  But  this 
will  not  be  attempted,  for  there  is  nothing  intermediate 
mentioned  betwixt  his  receiving  his  sight,  and  his  being 
baptized.  Hov/  deep  this  cuts  into  the  Baptist  system, 
Mr.  C  is  fully  av/are,  and  therefore  he  endeavoured  to  di- 
vert the  mind  of  the  reader  from  the  poiri»,  as  a  "'boyhnv''^ 
not  worthy  of  the  notice  of  a  man  .of  such  gigantic  talents. 
and  literary  reputation  as  he  telis  us  he  is — And  now  fur 
t'le  proof. 

^  III  Mat.  26:  62,  it  is  said  of  the  Jewish  High  Priest  &t 
the  trial  of  Jesus,  "Kai  anastas  archlereus  eipen" — liter- 
ally, ^'\\\d  the  High  Priest  dtandlag^tp,  ?aid."    'In  Mark 


251 

14:  CO,  it  Li  also  said,  ^•Kai  anaslas  archierc-uS  eis  to  ii»- 
80B'' — *^\nd  the  High  Priest  standing  up  in  the  midst.'* 
To  these  I  will  add  the  passa^i^e:-:  adduced  in  the  7th  letteri, 
for  the  purpose  of  presenting  the  proof  in  its  full  force.*  In 
Acts  1:  15,  it  is  said  of  Peter  on  the  daj  of  Pentecost  j 
'^'Anastas  Fetrps  en  meso  maihetGon  ej/Jtvr'— litGrallr, 
^^Vctcr  standing  Kp  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples,  gaid,'^ 
In  chap.  5:  34.  it  is  also  said  of  Gamaliel,  ^^anastas  da  tis 
en  sunedrio  Pharlsaios,  onomati  Gamaliel — eipen  de  pros 
autor'n^' — literally,  "'Then  a  certain  Pharisee  by  name 
Gamaliel,  standing  np  in  the  council,  said  unto  them.*' 
These  and  other  instances  which  might  be  produced  une- 
quivocal] j  prove,  that  althGugh  anastas  is  sometimes  used 
to  denote  a  person's  rising  up  from  his  seat  to  go  to  another 
pUce,  yet  it  is  more  frequently  used  to  denote,  a  person's 
rising  up  for  the  purpose  of  standing,  and  of  standing  only. 
The  High  Priest,  Peter,  and  Gamaliel  stood  up  out  of  res- 
pect to  the  assemblies  which  they  severally  addressed,  and 
]jerhaps  that  they  miglit  be  the  better  heard ^  and  Saul  out 
of  reverence  of  that  Jesus  who  had  graciously  arrested  him 
iuhis  mad  career  to  eternal  ruin,  and  also  out  of  respect  to 
his  ordinance  that  v.as  then  a.dministering  untoliim — It  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  observe,  that  this  is  the  posture  in 
which  adults  receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism  in  the  Pres- 
byterian churdi,  and  that  they  have  apostolical  example 
for  their  practice.  I  will  only  add,  that  I  have  no  litera- 
ture to  boast  of,  nor  have  I  ever  "professed  to  be  a  linguist," 
yet  I  here  fearlessly  defy  Mr.  C  or  any  of  his  assistants 
to  set  aside  by  any  just  rule  of  Biblical  interpretation,  the 
ara;ument  for  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  by  affusion,  as 
deduced  from  the  participle  anastas  in  Acts  9:18,  and  22: 
16.  Ind eed  the  gasconading  manner  in  which  he  has  ti-eat- 
od  it,  must  have  convinced  every  discerning  reader,  that 
lie  was  conscious  he  could  not  overthrow^  it,  notwithstan- 
ding it  pierced  his.  system  to  the  very  heatt. 

I  may  now  say  that  I  have  linished  Mr.  €h  objections  to 
the  doctrines  laid  dovrn  and  defended  in  the  8  first  letters; 
for  in  p.  352,  he  also  ranks  tlie  observations  made  in  the  4th 
letter  on  tlie  baptism  of  the  Jailor,  as  amongst  those  ^.•boy- 
hms  Vvhichare  not  half  so  feasible  as  the  arguments  in  fa- 
vor of  transubstantiation,"  &c.  without  assigning  any  ether 
reason.  His  reasons  for  this  summary  mode  of  repl  v  I  have 
lately  noticed,  and  the-  discerning  reader  can  easily  per- 


ceive  them.  I  shall  therefore  conclude  this  letter  with  a 
^ihort  address  to  the  baptized  youth,  especiall  j  those  who 
are  more  immediately  under  my  pastoral  inspection. 

DeAK  YoUXG  FBIEIftS, 

YOU  have  been  fiequentl;/,  and  with  propriety  too,  called 
^'the  hope  and  the  seed  of  the  church."  That  you  may  be  sucli, 
you  have  been  plawted  by  baptism  in  the  "vineyard,"  or  the  church 
of  God.  And  to  use  the  figurative,  "but  emphatic  language  of  the 
Head  of  the  Church  himself,  you  have  been  "dug  around,  and 
dunged"  by  the  word  of  God,  and  we  would  hope  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  applying  the  word  of  instruction  to  your  understandings 
and  consciences,  that  you  might  become  "trees  of  righteousness, 
the  planting  of  the  Lord,  that  he  might  be  glorified."  Yes — ^that 
God  might  be  glorified  by  youracceptingof  hissonas  your  Saviour, 
and  only  Saviour;  to  be  "washed  in  his  blood"  for  the  removal  of 
your  guilt:  to  be  "clothed  upon  with  the  white  raiment  of  his 
righteousness,"  that  the  shame  of  your  moral  nakedness  may  not 
appear;  to  be  sanctified  by  his  spirit,  and  governed  by  his  laws — 
his  laws,  "that  are  hoh',  just,  good,  and  spiritual."  Let  me  now 
ask  you,  and  ask  your  own  hearts,  if  you  have  thus  improved  the 
high  and  important  privilege.  If  you  have,  tlien  happy  ai'e  ye. 
You  may  consider  your  baptism  as  Christ's  CAtcrnal  seal  that  you 
are  interested  in  "the  rightef-usness  of  faith;"  and  his  spirit  has 
witnessed,  and  will  witness  with  your  sp'rits,  that  you  are  the 
children  of  God,  *'and  if  children,  then  heirs  of  Gcd»  and  joint 
heirs  wit'ii  Jesus  Christ  in  glory."  This  is  Christ's  internal  seal, 
"and  sealeth  unto  the  day  of  redemption."  Permit  ^mc  here  to 
exhort  such  to  avail  yourselves  of  your  high  and  distinguished 
privilege  as  children  of  God,  by  holding  an  uninterrupted  inter- 
course with  youi-  heavenly  father  by  prayer  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
for  alt  that  wisdon^  which  you  need  to  presence  you  from  abound- 
ing €rror,  and  to  guide  you  in  the  ways  of  truth  and  of  righteous- 
ness; and  for  all  that  strength  divine  which  you  need  every  m.o- 
ment  to  enable  you  to  resist  temptation  to  sin,  and  for  crucifying 
the  flesh,  with  the  affections  and  lusts.  Thus,  and  thus  only, 
can  you  live,  usefully  and  comfoi-tably,  and  die  triumphantly. 

But  is  it  so,  that  there  are  some  of  you  who  are  strangers  to  the 
thing  signified  by  "the  washing  with  v.-atcr," — *^the  renewing-*of 
"^.^  Holy  Ghost:"  we  must  teil  such  that  you?  state  is  at  the  same 


time  dangerous  and  deplorable.  Tbere  is  no  doubt  but  tliac  uiObr^ 
of  3'-ou  who  are  careless  and  pray erless,  "are  without  Christ,  and 
without  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world."  Notwithstanding 
that  there  is  a  relation  betwixt  you  and  Christ  by  your  being  bap  - 
tized  in  his  nanie;  remember,  "that  the  branches  in  him  which 
bear  not  fruit,  he  taketh  away." 

Let  me  exhort  you  then,  to  reflect  closely  and  seriously  on  youi* 
imminent  danger,  and  to  submit  to  the  sceptre  of  grace — "to  seek 
the  Lord  while  he  is  to  be  found,  and  to  call  upon  him  while  he 
is  near."  *'Let  the.  wicked  among  you  forsake  their  evil  ways, 
and  the  unrighteous  their  thoughts,  and  turn  unto  the  Lord  that 
he  may  have  mercy  upon  you,  and  to  God  that  he  may  abundant- 
ly pardon."  Permit  me  to  exhort  you  farther,  to  beware  of  that 
theological  system  which  is  propagated  with  so  much  industry  in 
the  present  day,  for  the  purpose  of  unhinging  your  faith  in  the 
doctrine  of  baptism,  and  to  lessen  your  confidence  in  your  pastor::3 
"as  interested  priests;"  and  to  induce  you  to  embrace  a  system 
which  disparages  the  blood -of  Christ,  by  attributing  as  much  efS- 
cacy  to  an  ordinance,  as  to  that  precious  blood. — That  tells  you 
"that  baptism  is  a  formal  and  personsd  remission  of  sins"— a  pur- 
gation of  sins — "and  that  the  baptized  believer  arises  out  of  the 
water,  as  innocent,  as  clean,  and  unspotted  as  an  angel"  More 
especially  when  you  are  told  that  the  faith  of  tliis  pardoned  and 
angelic  believer  amounts  to  nothing  more  "than  believing  the  one 
fact  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,^*  or  the  Messiah',  and  which  any  un- 
regenerate  person  may  exercise.  It  is  the  more  dangerous,  that 
it  is  a  way  ef  salvation  very  palatable  to  the  depraved  human 
heart,  and  pleasmg  to  the  sinner  who  is  sensible  of  ill-desert,  and 
exposure  to  the  rig-hteous  wrath  of  a  holy  and  offende?d  God. 

Be  not  deceived,  my  young  friends,  "God  is  not  mocked;  nor 
will  he  accept  of  immersion  in  water,  as  an  atonement,- or  any  part 
of  an  atonement  for  sin,"  or  purgation  of  sins.  Be  not  satisfied 
with  any  other  faith  than  that  which  shews  you  to  yourselves  as 
guilty  and  defded  sinners,  and  which  looks  unto,  and  apprehends 
the  blood  of  Chrlit  as  the  only  foundation  of  pardon,  and  v/hicjj, 
^'working  by  love,  purifies  the  heart,  and  overcomes  the  world." 
Cease  not  to  cry  unto  God,  for  tlie  temper  of  those  who  "are  born 
net  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  will  of  man,  but  of 
God."  This,  and  this  alone,  is  the  only  sure  evidence  that  your 
faith  is  *-the  fftith  of  Gcd's  elect,"     The  rsoison  of  the  asn  is  nc: 


254 

more  dangerous,  nor  more  fatal  to  the  body,  than  the  above  sys- 
tem is  to  the  soul.  Although  there  are  hundreds,  and  I  would 
hope  thousands  of-Baptists,  who  abhor  it  as  much  as  I  do;  yet 
somehow,  or  other,  ic  appears  to  be  connected  with,  and  to  spring- 
from,  the  Baptist  sj^stem..  It  i^  perhaps,  the  result  of  the  inordi- 
nate stress  which  Baptists  place  on  baptism  by  immersion.  As 
I  hare  shewn  in  the  8th  letter,  it  made  its  first  appearance  in  the 
fourth  century  in  the  writings  of  TEETULi-iA>r,  who  although  he 
admitted  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism,  yet  advised  against  it,  for 
the  reasons  there  mentioned.  It  appeared  afterwards  in  all  its  de- 
leterious and  licentious  colours  at  the  aera  of  the  reformation,  and 
now  again  it  has  made  its  appearance  in  the  writings  of  Mr.  Camp- 
BELi.  Beware  of  it  then,  and  let  your  hope  of  purgation  from  sin, 
rest  on  the  almighty  and  omniscient  spirit  of  Christ. 

I  have  mentioned  youi'  confidence  in  your  pastors;  but  I  have  no 
great  fears  on  that  point.  The  unceasing  torrent  of  abuse  which 
Mr.  C.  has  poured  out  upon  them  as  a  body,  is  known  to  be  slan- 
der, and  has  counteracted,  and  will  counteract  itself.  If  I  am  not 
much  mistaken,  his  career  is  near  an  end,  and  if  he  has  not  alrea- 
dy, he  win  soon  write  himself  into  complete  disrepute:  and  as  far 
as  his  WTitings  may  go  down  to  posterity,  when  read,  they  will  be 
read  by  the  intelUgent,  with  disgust  and  contempt,  and  by  the  se- 
rious, with  abhorrence  and  execration,  on  account  of  then*  impi- 
ety and^antinomlan  tendency.  Whatever  fears  I  have  arise  from 
those  doctrines  which  virtually  set  aside  the  blood  and  spirit  of 
Christ,  because  they  are  palatable  to  the  depraved  heart  of  man. 
In  a  word,  avoid  them  more  than  you  would  the  pestilence;  for 
they  lead  down  to  eternal  death  and  tvoe.  And  now  may  the  Fa- 
ther of  lights,  and  the  God  of  all  grace,  lead  you  in  the  paths  of 
truth  and  righteousness — may  he  lead  you  to  Christ  for  pardon, 
End  to  his  Spirit  for  purification. 

Yours  affectionately  in  the  Lord. 

SAMUEL  RALSTON. 


ADDRESSED 

TO  TH2  H'EV'.  JOHH  -WMJJKBH, 

iN  REPLY  TO  SOME  STRICTURES  MADE  BY  HIM  IN  HI^ 

TREATISE  ON  BAPTISM, 

03f  THE 


LETTER  i. 


Kevebekd  Sir. 


I  HAVE  read  llie  letter  which  you  addressed  to  me, 
in  your  Treatise  ox  Baptism.  In  the  beguming  of  that 
letter  you  seem  somewhat  displeased*,  because  I  have  hinted 
that  I  do  not  consider  a  publick  stage,  and  a  publick  de- 
bate, the  most  proper,  and  profitable  mode  of  discussing 
theological  questions.  I  am  still  of  the  same  opinion;  and 
the  instances  of  tlie  Reformers  publickly  disputing  with 
fheir  opponents  of  the  church  of  Rome,  is  not  in  my  opin- 
ion in  point;  because  the  press  was  then  in  its  infancy,  and 
could  not  be  resorted  to,  with  the  same  facility  as  in  the 
present  dsy,  for  the  defence  of  truth  and  the  refutation  of 
error;  to  which  I  would  add,  that  the  manners  and  feelings 
of  ihe  present  da^*,  are  dilTerent  from  those  of  the  rougher, 
and  less  polished  age  of  the  Reformation.  But  as  neither 
cf  our  opinions  on  this  point,  affects,  .or  can  affect  any  doc- 
trine or  precept  of  our  common  religion,  I  shall  pass  it  by, 
and  examine  the  objections  which  you  have  made  to  some 
doctrines  laid  down,  and  advocated  in  my  Reviev/  of  your 
publick  debate  with  ISlr.  Campbell  on  the  subject  of  Bap- 
tism. . 

Your  f.r&t  objection  related  to.  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion, recorded  in  the  17ih  diapter  of  Genesis.  1  have  said 
in  the  first  letter,  that  I  do  not  confider  that  covenant  to 
be  tlie  covenant  of  grace; — "but  an  ecclesiastical  covenant, 
or  a  covenant  whereby  Jehovah  was  pleased  to  bind  him- 
self by  the  Shal  of  circumcision  to  .send  a  redeemer  of  the 
seed  of  Abraliam  into  the  world — to  preserve  in  his  family 
.1  visible  church  as  the  medium  of  redemption,  until  that 
redeemer  should  come — Arid  jis  his* infinite  \\^sdom  raw- 
be  at,  to  appoint  from  time  to  time,  and  to  continue  with 
■jhem  such  ordinances  as  would  be  the  best  medium  of  ac- 
ceptable worship,  and  best  calculated  to  interest  them  in 
ihe  merits  cf  the  P-edeemer— and  when  this  redeemer  would 
come,  to  ingraft  the  Gentile  narions  into  the  church,  and 
c-msequer.tly  to,besto\v  upon  them  those  means  equally 
V  Hh  the  Jews — in  a  viord.that  it  Vviis  a  covenant,  or  dis- 
•         ••'^  n  -iaciously  designed,  and  v/iscly  calculated  as  a 


%57 

inean  to  an  end,  for  interesting  them  in  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  consisting  in  justification  and  sanctiSca- 
tion  here,  and  eternal  life  hereafter.  *' 

To  this  you  object,  and  in  p.  24.8,  "you  declare  that  the 
tovenant  of  circumcision  was  a  dispensation  of  the  coven- 
ant of  grace"— And  in  p.  251,  you  ask  me,  "what  is  an  ec- 
clesiastical covenant,  but  a  covenant  of  the  church?  And 
v/hat  else  is  the  covenant  of  grace."  To  this  jou  add, 
"that  two  parties  are  necessary  to  form  a  covenant.  In 
this  your  ecclesiastical  covenant,  God  must  have  been  the  , 
one  party,  and  the  church  the  other.  But  v/e  have  no  ac- 
count of  any  other  covenant  in  which  God  and  the  church 
were  parties,  besides  the  covenant  of  grace." 

That  the  objection  and  reply  may  be  the  more  clearly 
seen,  it  may  be  necessary  to  state  distinctly  what  we  are  to 
understand  by  the  covenant  of  grace;  as  there  is  something 
of  a  difterence  of  opinion  amongst  Calvinistic  divines  on 
this  important  point.  The  opinion  of  the  Westminster 
divines  on  this  point  is  thus  slated  in  their  ansv/er  to  the 
Slst  question  of  their  larger  catechism— -"The  covenant  of 
grace  was  made  with  Christ  the  second  Adam,  and  in  him 
with  all  the  Elect  as  his  seed."  It  is  apparent  from  their 
answer  to  the  30th,  or  preceding  question,  that  when  they 
say,  that  this  covenant  was  made  with  Christ,  God  in  the 
person  of  the  Father  was  the  other  party.  There  are  how- 
ever some  divines,  who  although  they  approve  of  the  con- 
fession of  faith  and  catechisms  of  those  divines,  yet  think 
that  this  definition  of  that  covenant  is  not  suificiently  ex- 
tended ;  and  by  the  covenant  of  grace,  they  understand  that 
eternal  compact  which  was  entered  into  between  the  per- 
sons of  the  Godhead,  for  the  purpose  of  saving  fallen  man. — 
That  in  that  compact  the  person  styled  the  Father,  con- 
sented and  engaged  to  send  the  person  styled  the  So^^,  in- 
to our  guilty  world  as  a  redeemer,  and  to  uphold  him  in  his 
arduous  undertaking,  and  as  a  reward  for  his  humiliation 
and  sufferings,  ''to  give  liim  the  heathen  for  his  inheritance, 
and  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  for  his  possession,  "-r- 
That  the  son  on  his  part,  consented  to  come  into  our  world 
for  that  gracious  purpose;  and  that  he  might  be  qualllied  to 
redeem  lost  sinners,  to  take  our  nature  into  union  with  his 
divine  nature,  and  in  our  nature  to  fulfil  and  magnify  the 
law  under  v/hich  we  are,  but  wliich  we  have  disiionored  by 
disobedience,  and  to  bear  its  dreadful  curse  for  the  purpose 
-23 


5j58 

of  satisfymg  the  ciairas  of  inexorable  justice  against  us.~a 
And  thai  the  peraon  styled  the  Spie-it^  and  the  Holy  Spir- 
it, engaged  on  his  part  to  come  into  our  woidd,  in  a  manner 
and  sense  that  is  peculiiirj  for  the  important  purpose  of  re- 
newing the  depraved  nature  of  those  v^^hom  sovereign  grace 
designed  to  save,  and  thereby  dispose  and  enable  them  to 
believe  in  'he  Son  as  the  only  saviour  of  sinners,  and  to  trust 
in  him  "for  v/isdom,  and  righteousness,  nnd  sanctiaea'tion, 
and  redemption.  *'  This,  I  confess,  is  that  view  of  the  sub- 
ject vvhith  pleases  me  best.  But  the  diSerence  bet'\v.ee';i 
this,  and  the  yiev/  iirst  stated,  is  in  nij  opinion  immaterial^ 
as  it  is  admitted  bj  those  v.  lio  think  that  this  covenant  was 
*'made  with  Christ,  and  in  him'  with'tke  Elect  as  his 
seed,^  that  it  is'the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
alone,  who  does,  and  can  apply  the  redemption  purcliased 
by  Christ  to  those  v^'^hom  a  sovereign  God  designed  to  save 
— This  virtually  includes  The  Holy  Spirit  as  a  party  in 
this  gracious  covenant. 

There  are  others  again  who  hold  something  like  two  cov- 
enants—A covenant  of  redemption  and  a  covenant  of 
grace:  the  former  madc^from  eternity  between  the  Father 
a.nd  the  Son,  and  the  latter  between  God  and  true  believers 
in  time^  or  as  som.e  e^^plain  it,  the  latter  is  a  branch  of  the 
former.  This,  it  would  seem,  is  your  view  of  the  subject^ 
v/ith  this  difference,  that  tlie  covenant  of  grace  v»'as  made 
between  God  and  the  church — "God  one  party,  and  the 
church  tb'e  other. "  As  it  is  not  necessary  for  my  argument, 
and  v/culd  be  digressing  from  the  point  on  hand,  to  enquire 
if  there  is  a  covenant, of  grace  distinct  from  a  covenant  of 
redemption.  I  will  admit  it  for  argument's  sake,  and  now 
state  V.  hat  I  think  must  be  the  consequence,  if  the  coven- 
ant of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  if  this 
coverxant  was  made  wilh  the  church,  as  you  ai^rm  is  the 
case.  The  church  is  a  collective  Body,  comprehending  all 
who  have  been  circumcised,  and  all  wKf»  have  been  bap- 
tized whether  adults  or  infants;  for  it  was  circumcision  of 
••Id  which  constituted,  and  baptism  wiiich  now  constitutes 
church-membership,  and  all  ethers  were,  and  are,  "aliens 
ffom  tiie  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the 
covenants  of  promise.  '^  Isow  Sir,  as  you  contend  that  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of  grace,  ''and 
that  the  blessings  of  that  covenant  are  the  property  of  the 
church:''  does  it  not  follow  that  all  the  circumcised  from 
Abraham  to  the  commencement  of  the  christian  dispensa- 


£59 

jii,  and  ali  the.  baptized  from  that  to  ilie  present  day. 
were,  and  are,  all  justiiled.  sanctified,  and  entitled  to  eter- 
nal life;  for  ym  will  admit  that  these  are  blessings  of  the 
co^venant  of  grace,  whatever  your  views  of  tliat  covenant 
may  be.  •  1  confess  that  I  cannot  see  any  other  consequen- 
ces which  can  be  drawn  from  the  premises  which  yoii  have 
!:aa  down.      : 

Should  you  say  as  you  de,  in  p.  £53,  that  in  Col.  1 :  18> 
._.e  apostle  stj-les  the  chiirch  the  -'Body  of  Christ,"  it  will 
not  relieve  you  from  the  foregoing  consequences,  as  it  is 
plain  from  the  context,  tliat  in  tha.t  passage  the  apostle  is 
speaKing  of  true  believers,  cr  those  who  by  a  living  faidi 
are  united  to  Christ  as  their  Head,  and  who  are  sometimes 
.stjded  ''the  invisible  church 5"  but  the  present  enquiry  res- 
pects the  visible  church  constituted  such  by  the  covenant 
of  circumcision. 

In  p.  248,  you  indeed  adduce  Gen:  IT:  7 — ^'1  will  es- 

blisli'"my  covenant  between  thee  and  me,  and  thy  seed 
.iter  thee  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  coven- 
ant," as  a  proof  of  the  position  that  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision was  the  covenant  of  grace.  You  adduce  Psalm 
89:  S3,  36 — "Once  have  I  sworn  by  my  holiness,  that  1 
will  not  lie  unto  David:  Hissced  shall  endare  forever, 
and  his  throne  as  ttie  sun  before  me,"  as  a  parallel  passage. 
To  which  you  add  Gal.  3:  29 — "And  if  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise." 

I  expect  that  it  is  the  word  everlasting  in  the  first  of 
these  p^iSSages  which  you  depend  upon  as  the  proof  of  your 
position.  That  the  word  is  used  in  the.sciiptures  to  de- 
note unlimited  duration  is  admitted s  but  it  must  be  admit- 
ted tliat  it  is  also  used  to  signify  limited  duration,  or  the 
end  of  a  dispensation.  It  is  also  used  to  signify  to  the 
end  of  the  worl^j  and  hence  the  expression,  "the  ever- 
lasting hills."  "That  it  is  used  in  tiie  Sth  or  following 
'verse — "I  v.iU  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  tiiee, 
Ihe  land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  possession,"  in  one 
or  perhaps  both  of  these  senses,  will  be  admitted ^  and  I 
know  of  no  reason  why  we  should  understand  it  as  denot- 
ing unlimited  duration  in  tb^  one  verse,  and  limited  dura- 
tion in  the  other.  Indeed,  the  consequences  which  I  have 
shewn  necessarily  flow  from  the  assumption  that  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of  grace,  will,  I 
hope  convince  you  that  we  must  understand  the  wordei'?:'" 


260 

tailing  as  denoting  limited  duration  in  both  verses.  Per- 
'iwips  it  liiay  be  said  that  baptized  believers  as  members  of 
the  visible  church  are  within  this  covenant,  and  that  the 
eifscts  of  it  as  a  mean  of  iiiteresting  therii  in  the"  covenant 
of  grace,  will  be  everlasting  to  such.  To  this  I  have  no  ob- 
Jectionj  but  to  say  that  it  is  '^an  everlasting  covenant,  so 
as  to  secure  final  salvation  to  all  v/ho  are  brought. bv  bap- 
tism within  its  pale,  is  neither  truth,  nor  fact. 

The  passage,  from  the  89th  Psalm  has  not  the  least  refer- 
ence to  Abraham,  nor  to  his  seed,  nor  to  the  covenant  of 
circumcision.  It  is  only  a  promise  to  Christ  of  whom  Da- 
vid v.- as  an  eminent  tj'pe,  tliat  he  shouldjiave  a  succession 
of  true  believers  in  his  church  to  the  end  of  time,  for  so  the 
v/ords  "for  ever'^  in  the  passage  must  be  necessarily  un- 
derstood. Gal.  3:  29,  has  indeed  a  reference  to  Abraham, 
and  perhaps  to  the  covenant  of  circumcision;  but  it  is  the 
spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  or  true  believers  in  Christ 
Vv iiich  the  apostle  alludes  to,  and  not  to  the  collective  body 
of  the  Jews  as  once  composing  the  visible  church,  as  I 
trust,  I  will  hereaf^r  make  appear. 

And  here  it  may  not  be  unnecessary  to  observe,  that  al- 
though not  by  you,  I  have  seen  the  "words,  "Twill  be  a 
God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,"  adduced  as  a 
proof  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of 
p;race.  To  this  it  may  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  there  is  no- 
thing in  the  import  of  the  words  but  may  be  fairly  accom- 
modated to  the  circumstance  of  Jeliovah's  preserving  the 
Jevrs  as  his  visible  church  in  the  midst  of  surrounding  ene- 
mies, and  continuing  witii  them  the  ordinances  of  Ins  ovv'n 
appointment,  as  i\\^  medium  of  acceptable  worship,  and 
means  of  graces  while  ine,  rest  of  mankind  were  covered 
with  tliick  moral  darkness.  I  will  not  say  that  those 
words  had  not  also  a  reference  to  Jehovah's  distinguisliing 
love  to,  and  paternal  care  of  the  spirituafseed  of  Abraham j 
but  suiely  they -cannot  be  understood  is  applied  in  this 
sense  to  the  v/icked  and  unbelieving  part  of  Abraham's ' 
posterity,  although  circumcised. 

I  have  also  seen  Ileb.  8:  8-10,  adduced  as  a  proof  of  the 
same  position — "Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord^ 
when  I  shall  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Is- 
rael, and  with  the  house  of  Judah:  Not  according  to  the 
covenant  that  I  made  wrth  their  fathers  in  the  day  vv'hen  I 
took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  E- 
gypt;  because  they  continued  not  in  my  covenant,  and  I 


261 

r(?garded  tbem  not  sfiith  the  Lord.  For  this  is  the  coven- 
ant that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel  in  those  days, 
saith  the  Lordj  I  will  put  my  laws  in  their  mind  and  write 
them  in  theirheartsj  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people." 

It  may  be  sufficient  to  say  in  answer  to  this  argument, 
that  there  is  not  the  least  allusion  in  this  passage  to  the  coy- 
enant  of  circumcision,  but  to  what  is  usually  styled  the 
Siiiai  covenant.  It  is  not  necessary  for  my  argument  to 
enquire  here  into  the  character  of  that  covenant;  but  it  is 
certain  that  it  was  distinct  from  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion, inasmuch  as  it  was  ratified  by  a  different  ^eal — 'Hhe 
blood  of  sacrifices  sprinkled  on  the  altar  and  on  the  people  r' 
Exod.  24:  7,  8.  It  may  however  not  be  amiss  to  observe, 
that  the  Greek  word  diatheke^  translated  "covenant,*'  also 
signifies  a  testament,  and  an  establishment,  or  as  the 
latter  word  imports,  the  mean  through  Vvhich  Jehovah  com- 
municates his  designs  of  grace  to  fallen  men:  and  may  not 
have  reference  to  a  covenant  or  covenants  strictl}'-  consid- 
ered, but  to  what  is  usually  styled  the  Mosaic  and  christian 
dispensations  of  grace.  'This  interpretation  is  counten- 
anced by  the  circum&tance  and  consideration  that  tiiere  is 
not  an  **o/f/,"  and  a  ''hieto^^  covenant  of  grace,  the  former 
of  which  is  said  in  the  7th  verse,  to  be  not  '^faultless,^^  or 
comparatively  defective,  and  the  latter  in  the  ISth  verse, 
to  h&ve  "^ waxed  old.,  and  ready  to  vanish  away^^^  but  this 
"was  th^  case  with  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  The  whole 
passage  is  a  quotation  from  the  Slst  chapter  of  Jeremiah, 
•and  contains  promises  not  yet  fully  accomplished.  The 
"new  covenant,"  or  estaelispiment  has  a  special  refer- 
ence to  the  Jews  under  the  present  dispensation,  and 
promises  an  abundant  out-pouring  of  the  spirit's  illuminat- 
ing and  purifying  influences  on  tliat  former  people  of  God; 
but  is  surely  no  proof  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
was  tiie  covenant  of  grace.  But  should  it  be  contended 
that  diaihehe  m  this  passage'  means  a  covenant  strictly  tak- 
en, and  that  the  nev/  covenant  means  the  covenant  of 
grace,  it  would  not  thence  follow  that  the  covenants  of  cir- 
cumcision and  grace  are  the  same;  for  as  already  observed, 
it  is  not  the  first  of  tiiese  covenants,  and  the  covenant  of 
grace,  but  that  at  Sinai  which  are  alluded  to,  and  contras- 
ted in  this  passage. 

As  a  part  of  {\\q  argument,  that  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision  v.as  not  the  covenant  of  grace,  I  have  said  in  the 


262 

letter  referred  to — ''that  the  moment  a  seal  is  affixed  to  a, 
covenant,  that  moment  the  person  on  whose  behalf  the  cov- 
enant was  made,  becomes  interested  in  all  the  privileges 
therein  contained — that  it  follows  by  inevitable  conse- 
quence, that  if  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  cov- 
enant of  grace,  every  circumcised  person,  and  if  baptism 
is  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  every  baptized  person 
must  be  saved.'' 

In  jour  first  reply  to  this  argument,  and  in  a  subjoined 
note,  you  tell  me  with  something  of  an  air  of  irony  and 
triumph,  that  you  have  involved  me  in  "a  difficulty,  "or  as 
the  logicians  term  it,  placed  me  between  the  horns  of  a  di- 
lemma from  which  I  cannot  escape.  And  what  is  this 
mighty  diinculty,  and  fearful  dilemma.^ — "That  I  will 
consider  the  Lord's  Supper  to  be  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
graces"  and  that  according  to  my  argument  ''*it  follows  by 
inevitable  consequence  that  every  person  a.dmitted  into  the 
communion  of  the  church  must  be  saved." 

In  reply  to  this  I  would  observe,  that  admitting  that  the 
ordinance  of  the  supper  is  a  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
I  think,  that  a  consideration  of  the  difference  between  bap- 
tism and  that  ordinance,  in  regard  to  their  nature  and  de- 
sign, and  the  persons  for  whom  they  were  severally  institu- 
ted, should  have  prevented  you  from  drawing  the  conclu- 
sion which  yuu  have  drawn  in  the  above  quotation,  and  al- 
ledged  objection.  Brtptism  was  appointed  as  a  mean  of 
induction  into  the  churchy  and  I  think  I  have  proved  that 
it  was  also  appointed  as  a  mean  of  regeneration.  It  has 
taken  the  room  of  circumcision,  and  the  moment  a  person 
is  baptized,  that  moment  he  is  interested  in  all  the  privile- 
ges of  the  covenant  cf  circumcision^  because  the  visible 
church,  to  the  end  of  time,  is  founded  on  that  covenant. 
And  admitting  that  a  living  faith  is  required  of  adults  in 
order  to  their  baptism,  yet  the  v/ant  of  it  does  not  render 
their  baptism  null  and  void,  nor  deprive  them  of  those 
]:.rivileges.  There  is  not  the  least  hint  in  all  t\\Q  word  of 
God  that  this  is  the  case;  and  there  are  none,  not  even  the 
Baptists  themselves  v/ho  hold  that  tliey  should  be  rebapti- 
zed  when  they  give  evidence  that  they  are  true  believers. 
But  for  whom  now,  and  for  what  pui-pose,  was  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  supper  appointed?  There  is  no  position  in  all 
the  Vvord  of  God  more  clear  to  myself  than  tliis — that  it  was 
appohited  for  true  believers  only^and  all  others  are  exclu- 
ded by  express  prohibition,  1.  Cor.  11:  27 — 29 — ^and  thav 


i:63 

it  was  appointed  as  a  medium  through  which  tbe  cidld  of 
God  holds  communion  with  his  heavenly  father — by  faith 
feeds  on  Christ  'Hhe  bread  of  life^-'  and  I  have  nonobjec- 
tions that  jou  saj,  that  it  is  to  su^ch  a  person  a  seal  of  his 
interest  in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  consisting 
in  justification,  sanctiflcation,  and  eternal  life.  But  does 
the  unbelieving  communicant  hold  communion  with  God 
in  that  ordinance^  and  is  it  to  him  or  her  a  seal  of  their  in- 
terest in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace?  The  re- 
verse is  the  melancholy  fact;  ^Hhej  eat  and  drink  judge- 
ment to  themselves."  And  why  is  this  ordinance,  not  a 
seal  of  the  foregoing  blessings,  to  such  persons?  Because 
they  are  expressly  prohibited  j  and  because  they  are  desti- 
tute of  that  faith  wiiich  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  by  the 
divine  requisition,  are  indispensibly  necessary  for  * 'dis- 
cerning the  Lord's  body,"  or  the  true  character  and  de- 
sign of  that  ordinance.  But  as  a,lready  observed,  the  case 
of  the  baptized  unbelieving  adult  is  very  different,  even  ad- 
mitting that  the  same  faith  is  required  for  admittance  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  the  ordinance  of  the  supper. 
His  want  of  this  faith  does  not  deprive  him  of  the  right  of 
church-membership,  nor  exclude  him  from  the  privileges  of 
the  visible  church,  the  ordinance  of  the  supper  excepted. 
I  trust  that  a  due  consideration  of  the  foregoing  remarks 
will  induce  you  to  acknowledge  that  1  have  solved  "the 
difficulty, "  and  tliat  your  dilemma  has  not  even  the  appear- 
ance of  a  horn. 

Your  second  reply  to  my  ai-gument  is — '  *that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  affixing  a  seal  to  a  covenant,  and  dischar- 
ging the  duties  of  the  same.  In  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  the  seal  is  affixed,  but  by  a  life  of  conformity  to  the 
law  of  God,  we  can  alone  discharge  the  duties  of  it.  p.  250." 

There  is  a  difference  between  affixing  the  seal  to  a  hu- 
man-covenant,  ''and  discharging  the  duiies  of  the  same." 
And  in  all  such  covenants  when  equitable,  the  affixing  the 
seal  is  a  voluntary  act,  and  it  is  ahvays  implied  that  the 
parties  have  it  in  their  power  to  discharge  the  duties  re- 
quired by  the  compact.  But  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
was  of  divine  device,  and  tlie  seal  of  it  wa!s,  by  the  express 
command  of  God  liimself  impressed  upon  infants  who  on 
account  of  their  infancy  were  incapable  of  discharging  any 
duty  whatever.  This  is  also  the  case  with  respect  to  bap- 
tism, the  seal  of  that  covenant  under  the  present  dispensa- 
tion.    It  is  also  impressed  upon  them,  although  not  capa- 


264 

ble  at  ilie  tkiie  of  discharging  the  duties  resulting  from  the 
pi'ivilege.  With  respect  to  the  ordinance  of  the  supj^er  it 
is  otherwise.  As  has  been  lately  observed  the  head  of  the 
church  strictly  forbids  any  to  take  hold  of  that  seal,  un- 
less they  are  possessed  of  that  faith  which  will  enable  them 
•'to  discern  the  Lord's  body,"  and  to  discharge  the  duties 
incumbent  upon  such. 

But  besides  this,  you  contend  that  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision was  a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace," 
and  that  all  the  circumcised  were,  and  all  the  baptized  are 
interested  in  the  blessings  of  that  covenant,  the  former  by 
tlteir  circumcision,  and  the  latter  by  their  baptism.  As 
has  been  repeatedly  observed,  these  blessings  consist  in. 
justification,  sanctification,  and  a  title  to  eternal  life.  Now, 
many  of  these  justified  and  sanctified  baptize<:l  ones  have 
given,  and  do  give  undoubted  evidence  that  they  afe  in 
''the  gall  of  bitterness  and  in  the  band  of  iniquity,"  as  did 
Simon  Ttlagus  shortly  after  he  had  been  baptized.  Pray 
Sii^,  how  was  their  justification  forfeited^  and  above  all, 
how  did  they  loose  the  spirit  of  sanctification.  An  Armin  - 
ian  may  answer  these  questions  by  telling  me  that  they 
fell  from  grace;  but  how  you  who  art  a  Calvinist  will  answer 
them,  I  cannot  divine.  And  yet  as  many  of  the  baptized 
never  gave  any  evidence  that  they  were  "born  again,"  au 
Arminian  who  may  have  embraced  your  theory  on  this 
point  will  be  as  much  puzzled  to  answer  tlie  foregoing 
questions  in  regard  to  such  persons  as  you  are.  And  to 
this  I  would  add;  does  not  your  theory  respecting  this 
point,  hold'out  the  unchangeable  covenant  of  grace,  as 
changeable,  and  its  ''sure  mercies,"  as  not  sure.  Baptists 
see  this,  and  accordingly  direct  their  arrows  against  this 
very  vulnerable  point;  and  I  know  not  how  they  can  be 
intercepted,  or  turned  aside  according  to  your  system.  I 
once  thought  on  this  point  as  you  do  at  present;  and  it  ^tas 
the  difficulty  now  stated,  that  first  caursed  me  to  doubt  res- 
pecting my  former  creed.  To  obtain  light  on  the  subject, 
and  that  I  m.ight  be  furnished  with  a  shield  wherewith  to 
defend  myself  against  the  arrov/s  of  the  assailants,  I  read 
every  thing  on  the  subject  to  which  I  had  access,  and  at- 
tended particularly  to  the  arguments  adduced  to  prove 
tlicit  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of 
grace.  Although  I  was  never  satisfietl  with  the  arguments 
on  that  poinr,  I  wls  less  so  wlien  the  writers  attempted  tp 
account  far  tlie  p."Jpablc  fact,  that  many  vvho  were  brought 


2()5 

into  tiie  covenant  of  grace  bj  circumcision  and  baptism/ 
were,  or  became  the  children  of  wrath,  and  the  children  of 
the  devil.  To  myself  ail  was  darkness  and  confusion,  and 
sometimes  '•confusion  worse  confounded^"  and  to  be  can- 
did, I  do  not  see,  that  you  have  shed  a  ray  of  light  on  the 
dark  and  tangled  path.  Tliey  set  out  with  tke affirmation 
that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  adduce  the  passages  lately  examined  as  a 
proof  of  the  position.  And  although  all  the  promises  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  are  absolute,  yet  to  account  for  the  in;- 
deniable  fact  that  many  who  they  say  were  brotigiit  into 
that  covenant  by  circumcision  and  baptism,  were  unbe- 
'lievers,  they  either  turn  it  into  a  conditional  covenant,  "br 
fritter  it  down  to  a  simple  offer  of  salvation  through  Christ, 
which  I  need  not  say,  is  the  privilege  of  the  merest  heathen 
v/ho  hears  the  word,  as  well  as  of  the  circumcised,  or  bap- 
tized. These  were  things  which  I  could  not  understand, 
nor  reconcile  with  my  views  of  the  w^ell  ordered  covenant 
of  grace.  But  no  sooner  was  I  led  to  see  that  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace;  but  a  cove- 
nant designed  for  securing  a  visible  church  and  her  ordi- 
nances as  means  througli  which  sinners  are  interested  in 
tlie  covenant  of  grace,  than  in  my  appi^hension  the  dark- 
ness and  confusion  vanished,  and  I  saw  a  most  wise  suita- 
bleness in  the  one  covenant,  as  a  mean,  for  interesting  in 
the  other. 

I  will  only  add  on  tliis  point,  that  I  am  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  combating  in  i\\e  preceding  observations  the  opin- 
ion of  those  V\ho  liold  that  God  enters  into  a  covenant  of 
grace  with  true  believers  in  Christ  as  soon  as  tlicy  believe. 
Although  i  have  not  embraced  that  viev,-  of  the  subject,  jet 
they  who  hold  it  admit,  that  tliis  covenant  is  absolute,  and 
its,  mercies  sure.  I  am  only  combating  the  opinion  of 
those  who  say  with  you  that  this  covenant  whicii  you  say 
was  the  same  as  the  covenant  of  circumcisio'^  was,  and  is 
made  with  the  church  collectively  considered.  As  already 
observed,  it  is  a  hypothetical,  or  conditional  covenant;  for 
it  is  an  undeniable  fact,  that  many  were  admitted  into  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  who  were  in  a  state  of  unbelief  at 
the  time  tiiey  were  admitted,  and  it  depended,  and  de- 
pends on  the  circumstance  of  their  believing  afterwards, 
whether  they  will  be  saved,  or  not.  And  should  you  em- 
brace the  system  of  those  who  hold  that  the  covenant  of 
24 


£66 

grace  is  made  with  believers  only,  I  do  not  see  that  it  woultl 
alter  the  casej  as  it  will  not  be  said  that  all  circumcised 
and  baptized  persons  were  true  believers;  and  I  expect  to 
shew  that  Jehovah  commanded  those  to  be  circumcised,  of 
whom  it  will  not  be  said,  that  they  were  true  believers  at 
the  time  they  were  circumcised. 

I  confess  that  your  third  reply  in  the  same  page,  some- 
what astonished  me.  Notwithstandingyou  contend  that  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  covenant  of  grace;  and 
notwithstanding  you  acknowledge  that  justification,  sane- 
tiiication,  a,nd  eternal  life,  are  the  blessings  of  that  cove- 
nant, yet,  in  that  reply  you  say — '-that  the  utmost  that  can 
be^ inferred  from  the  circumstance  of  a  person  being  bapti- 
ze'd,  is,  that  they  are  under  the  laws  of  Christ'^  house — that 
the  simple  truth  f.ppears  to  be;  that  there  is  a  visible  rela- 
tion subsisting  between  Christ  and  all  the  members  of  the 
visible  church,  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  all  the  external 
privileges  of  the  church,  so  long  as  they  conform  to  her 
visible  laws." 

I  must  take  an  exception  here.  They  arenot  entitled  to 
the  ordinance  of  the  supper  until  they  are  possessed  of  a 
living  faith  in  Christ.  The  profession  of  it  does  indeed 
entitle  them  to  that  privilege  in  the  eye  of  the  church,  but 
the  head  of  the  church  looks  for  the  thing  itself.  But  pas- 
sing this  by;  I  would  now  appeal  to  yourself,  if  the  prece- 
ding quotation  is  not  diametrically  opposite  to  the  doctrine 
which  you  have  all  along  contended  for:  and  if  it  does  not 
virtually  establish  the  doctrine  for  vvhich  I  am  contending. 

You  repeat  the  same  doctrine  in  the  next  paragraph.  I 
-liave  s^.id  "that  an  external  relation  to  a  covenant,  if  it  has 
any  meaning  at  all,  must  mean  to  be  out  of  a  covenant.*' 
For  this  you  correct  me  and  say,  ''that  to  be  externally 
related  to  a  covenant  is  to  be  an  externp.l  member  of  it.*' 
To  this  I  shall  only  say  that  I  cannot  form  any  idea  of  an 
exieriial  uieuiber  of  a  covenant.  We  must  I  think,  be  ei- 
ther interested  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  out  of  it — I 
know  of  no  middle  ground.  If  we  are  in  it,  or  interested 
in  it,  then,  "we  are  washed,  and  sanctitied,  and  justified, 
ia  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  spirit  of  our 
God;"  and  I  cannot  see  how^  we  can  be  in  it,  and  not  in- 
terested in  those  blessings.  But  we  can  be  interested — 
really  interested  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  by  the  seal 
being  impressed  upon  us,  and  not  interested  in  the  cove- 


267 

liiintpf  grace.  As  already  observed,  the  one  was  designed 
as  a  mean  to  an  end,  for  interesting  us  in  the  other.  Those 
interested  in  the  one  compose  the  visible;  but  those  inter- 
ested in  the  other,  the  invisible  church.  Many  of  the 
members  of  the  one  "bear  not  fruit,"  and  continuing  fruit- 
less will  be  finally  "taken  away;"  but  the  members  of  the 
other  "bear  fruit,  and  shall  be  purged,  that  they  may  bring 
forth  more  fruit."  '  In  John  15:2,  both  of  these  parties  are 
said  to  be  "in  Christ;"  because  he  was  a  party  in  both  of 
these  covenants.  In  the  one,  he,  as  the  head  of  the  church 
was  one  party,  and  Abraham  as  representing  the  visible 
church  was  the  other;  an^t  in  the  other  covenant  he  was  a 
party  with  t^e  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  purchased 
the  blessings  of  that  covenant  for  ail  who  believe  in  his 
name. 

And  here  I  would  beg  leave  to  remark,  that  I  have  been 
leu  to  think  from  this  last  reply,  and  from  other  expressions 
in  your  letter,  that  you  consider  the  ordinances  of  the 
church  as  a  part  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
and  that  the  circumcised  and  the  baptized  become  interes 
ted  in  these  blessings  by  their  circumcision  and  baptism 
and  no  farther.     If  thia  is  your  view  of  the  subject,  then 
if  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  inis.  covenant  of  griice 
that  covenant  contains  no  greater  blessings;  for  an  inspired 
apostle  expressly  says  in  a  passage  whicn  we  shall  shortly 
examine  more  particularly,  that  *^the  oracles  of  God"  are 
the  chief  advantage  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 

From  the  preceding  observations  you  may  see,  that  the 
case  in  the  next  paragraph  "of  ten  children  who  may  have 
an  equal  ri^ht  in  a  will,  jet  five  of  them  ,through  profligacy 
may  never  inherit  any  part  of  the  estate,"  is  not  illustra- 
tive of  your  system.  Unbelievers,  though  baptized,  are  not 
interested  in  the  covenant  of  grace;  nor  did  they  "forsake 
their  own  mercies,"  as  you  say  they  do,  if  by  mercies  you 
mean  the  sure  mercies  of  that  covenant.  They  may,  and 
ahis!  many  of  them  do  misimprove  the  privileges  connec- 
ted with  tiie  covenant  of  circumcision;  but  they  could  not 
forsake  that  which  they  never  possessed.  The  case  of  the 
ten  virgins  (Mat.  25,)  which  you  adduce  for  the  same  pur- 
pose fails  in  a  very  material  point — the  five  which  were 
*^foolish,^^  had  no  oil  in  their  lamps. 

You  may  also  see,  that  the  "novel  theory"  which  you 
mention  in  p.  253,  as  mine,  is  one  of  your  own  formation^' 


£68 

I  have  not  said,  nor  is  it  deducible  from  an j  thing  I  have 
said — '*that  God  the  Father  did  through  Christ  as  federal 
head,  enter  iniotivo  covenants  with  the  church,"  the  one  as 
a  mean  for  interesting  in  tiie  other.  I  have  intimated  that 
I  view  the  covenant  of  grace  as  a  compact  between  the 
persons  of  the  Godhead  for  the  purposes  already  mention- 
ed; and  I  have  said,  and  T  still  saj,  that  God  entered  into 
a  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  circumcised  seed  for  the 
purpose  of  interesting  in  tliat  covenant.  I  will  only  add 
en  this  point,  that  I  must  have  expressed  myself  very  ob- 
scurely, or  you  must  have  read  my  pamphlet  very  super- 
ficially, or  you  w^ould  not  have  enlarged  nie  with  the  above 
absurd  theory  or  system. 

Rom,  3:  2 — ''What  advantage  hath  the  Jew,  or  what 
profit  is  there  of  circumcision?  Much  every  w^ay ;  but  cMefly[ 
because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of 
God,"  was  adduced  in  the  first  letter  as  another  proof  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace. 
The  argument  from  this  passage  is  short,  but  clear,  and  I 
think  conclusive.  It  is  almost  an  insult  to  the  understan- 
ding of  the  weakest  reader  to  point  it  out.  Neither  you, 
nor  any  other  w^riter  which  I  have  seen,  pretend  to  say  that 
the  words  "the  oracles  of  God"  mean  justification,  sanctl- 
iication,  and  eternal  life,  the  acknowledged  blessings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace.  They  import  only,  as  I  shall  shortly 
shew,  the  scriptures  of  that  day,  and  the  ordinances  of  re- 
li^on  revealed  therein;,  but  the  apostle  sa.ys  in  the  most 
positive  terms,  that  these  are  the  chief  advantage  which 
the  Jews  received  from  the  covenant  of  circumcision — > 
"cA'/^y,  because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the  ora- 
cles of  God." 

And  what  now  is  your  reply  to  this  argument.^ — ''That 
we  are  to  consider  the  scriptures  in  no  other  sense,  than 
as  a  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,"  p.  9.55*  This 
is  confounding  things  indeed.  The  scriptures.  Sir,  re- 
veal, or  tell  us  of  this  covenant;  but  tliere  is  a  manifest 
difference  between  the  thing  revealed,  and  the  medium  of 
revelation:  nor  will  it  be  said  that  the  covenant  of  grace  is 
revealed  in  every  part  of  the  scriptures,  but  in  some  par- 
ticular places  only.  The  very  circumstance  of  your  being 
compelled  to  resort  to  such  an  assumption,  whether  you 
designed  it  as  an  argument  or  objection,  might  have  convin- 
■ed  you  that  there  was  sometliijig  wrong  in  your  systeni* 


-    269 

You  also  tell  me  in  the  same  page,  ''that  3011  consider  the 
scriptures  lobe  the  written  Testament  of  Christ  sealed  with 
his  blood  as  testator;"  and  then  you  ask  me  "if  I  will  say, 
that  Christ  as  testator  sealed  two  wills,  the  one  an  ecclesi- 
astical will,  and  the  other  the  testament  of  grace. "  I  pre- 
sume  that  in  this  objection  you  have  reference  to  Heb.  9': 
15,  IT;  and  in  answer  it  may  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  if  you 
will  again  read  that  passage,  and  its  context  with  care,  you 
will  see  that  the  apostle  had  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
scriptures,  but  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  he  repre- 
sents as  a  TESTAMENT  OT  WILL,  the  blcsslngs  of  which  he 
says  in  the  14t]i  verse,  Christ  purchased  by  his  blood,  and 
as  a  dying  father  bequeathed  them  to  the  children  of  his 
grace.  I  would  hope  that  this  consideration  will  convince 
you  that  my  argument  from  Rom.  3:  2,  is  unimpaired;  and 
I  repeat  it,  that  of  itself  it  settles  the  point,  unless  you  can 
prove  that  the  words  "the  oracles  of  God,"  mean  justifica- 
tion, sanctification,  and  eternal  life. 

But  that  they  mean  nothing  more  tiian  what  I  have  men- 
tioned is  apparent  from  Rom.  9:4,  5,  where'  the  apostle 
gives  us  a  detailed  account  of  the  privileges  of  the  Jews  in 
consequence  of  their  being  within  the  pale  of  t};e  covenant 
of  circumcision.  In  the  preceding  verse  he  says,  "I  could 
wish  (or  I  did  wish)  myself  accursed  from  Christ,  for  my 
brethren  my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh;  v/ho  are  Isra- 
elites: to  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and 
the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service 
of  God,  and  the  promises;  whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of 
whom  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all, 
God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen."  I  trust  I  need  not  tell  you, 
that  by  the  adoption  in  this  passage,  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand spiritual  adoption,  for  this  surely  was  not  the  privi- 
lege of  all  the  Jews;  but  national  adoption  as  the  visible 
church  of  God.— That  by  the  "covenants,"  we  are  not  to 
understand  the  covenants  of  redemption  and  of  grace;  for 
all  the  Jews  were  not  interested  in  those  covenants,  even 
admitting  the  distinction  to  be  scriptural;  but  the  covenant 
recorded  in  the  15th  chapter  of  Genesis,  whereby  the  land 
of  Canaan  was  secured  to  them  as  the  descendants  of  Abra- 
''^ham,  together  with  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  the  de- 
sign of  which  has  been  often  mentioned,  and  the  covenant 
at  Sinai,  whereby  Jehovah  became  their  political  sovereign. 
—And  that  by  "the  promises"  we  are  to  understand  the 
*24 


proniUfcB  aimexed  to  those  covenants.  The  meaning  of 
the  other  expressions  are  obvious  to  the  weakest  capacity; 
and  convey  the  idea  of  ecde.siasticcd  privileges  only;  and 
all  taken  together,  and  viewed  in  connexion  with  Roai.  3: 
2,  prove  I  think,  beyond  all  controversy,  that  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  v/as  not  the  covenant  of  grace. 

You  conclude  your  objections  by  telling  me  in  p.  Q56, 
that  my  theory  on  this  point  is,  1st,  '^Thatthe  covenant  of 
circumcision  is  an  ecclesiastical  covenant  containing 
no  promises."  Surely,  Sir,  I  have  not  said  so,  and  you 
should  have  remembered  that  in  the  letter  referred  to,  I 
have  adduced  the  last  quoted  passage  as  a  proof  of  the  re- 
verse. 2d,  '-That  there  are  two  covenants  existing  be- 
tween God  and  man,  the  one  containing  the  means,  and 
the  other  the  end."  To  this  I  Aviil  only  say,  that  I  do  not 
know  that  there  can  be  any  covenant  between  God  and 
sinful  man  where  spiritual  obedience  is  required;  because 
man  has  unfitted  himself  by  disobedience  for  rendering- 
such  obedience.  It  seems  that  you  tliink  otherwise;  I 
w^ould  be  glad  to  see  the  proof.  The  3d,  *»That  the  ec- 
clesiastical COVENANT  has  but  one  seal,  and  secured  the 
means  of  ^ace  only,"  has,  I  think,  been  clearly  proved  in 
the  preceding  observations — I  do  not  know  that  it  needed 
a  second. 

I  shall  close  this  letter  by  observing,  that  inattention  tx> 
the  circumstance,  that  Abraham  is  spoken  of  in-  the  scrip  ■ 
tuves  as  the  father  of  a  circumcised  and  of  a  spiritual  seed, 
is,  I  am  persuaded,  what  has  led  you  and  others  to  adopt 
a  system  of  Pedobaptism  which  in  my  opinion  is  indefen- 
sible. In  consequence  of  his  being  circumcised,  Abraham 
became  "tke  root"  of  the  visible  church  under  that  dis- 
pensation; and  it  is  apparent  from  the  17th  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis, that  all  his  seed  were  entitled  to  church -membership 
by  the  same  ordinance.  It  is  equally  apparent  from  Paul's 
Epistles  to  the  Romans,  and  to  the  Galatians,  that  all  true 
believers  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  were,  and  are  entitled 
to  the  blessings  promised  to  "the  righteousness  of  faiih," 
as  he  was  by  believing;  and  hence  he  is  held  out  to  our 
view  by  the  apostles  as  the  father  of  a  natural  and  circum- 
cised, and  also  of  a  spiritual  or  believing  seed.  By  not  at- 
tending to  this  circumstance,  and  confounding  these  things, 
you  have  put  arms  into  the  hands  of  the  Baptists  against 
which  you  cannot  defend  yourselves,  and  furmshed  them 


Vv'itli  objectiorss  which  jou  cannot  answer.     Idut  liiis  is  not 
all,  nor  the  worst.     To  tell  baptized  persons  as  your  sys- 
tem doeSj  that  bj  baptism  they  are  interested  in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  is  calculated  to  convey  a  false  and  dangerous 
hope,  and  to  induce  them  to  look  fov  nothing  more  in  order 
to  salvation;  for  there  are  many  of  them  who  know  and  be- 
lieve that  justification,  sanctifi cation,  and  eternal  life  are 
secured  by  the  promise' of  God  to  all  who  are  within  the. 
pale  of  that  covenant.     This  it  appears,  was  the  inference 
which  the  Jews  drev/  from  the  circumstance  of  their  being 
the  circumcised  offspring  of  Abraham.     '"We  have  Abra- 
ham for  our  father,"  (said  they)  in  consequence  of  which 
they  saw  not  the  necessity,  and  neglected  the  duty  "of  re- 
pentance toward  God,  and  of  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  though  urged  upon  them  in  the  strongest  manner 
by  the  Baptist,  and  by  Christ  himself.    It  is  true  that  you 
acknowledge  in  p.  250,  that  the  covenant  of  circumcisiori 
entitled  the  circumcised,    and    consequently  the  bapti- 
zed, to  the  means  of  grace  only;  but  then  you  affirm  in 
the  next  page,  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the 
covenant  of  grace — "that  in  this  covenant  God  was  the 
one  party,  and  the  church  the  other;"  and  in  a  preceding 
page,    "that  there  are  no  blessings  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  but  may   be   considered  as   the  property  of  th^ 
church,"  notwithstanding  it  is  composed  of  wise  and  fool- 
ish virgins.     It  belongs  to  you,  Sir,  and  not  to  me,  to  re- 
concile, if  you  can,  these  jarring  and  opposing  assertions* 
Now,  that  Abraham  sustained  the  relation  of  a  father 
of  a  natural  and  circumcised,  and  also  of  a  spiritual  seed; 
andi  that  the  circumcised  seed  as  such,  were  not  interest- 
ed by  their  circumcision  in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  is  farther  apparent  from  what  Christ  says  in  Mat. 
8:11,  12,  in  reference  to  the  day  of  judgment.     "And 
many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  shall  sit 
down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  out." 
Indeed,  an  attention  to  the  above  circumstance,  is  what 
alone  can  enable  us  to  understand  the  apostles  correctly 
when  speaking  of  the  Jews  as  the  children  of  Abraham. 
Thus  for  instance;  in  Acts  3:  25,  which  you  adduce  in  p. 
252,  as  a  proof  that  the  Jews  were  by  circumcision  brought 
into  the  covenant  of  grace,  Peter  speaks  of  them  only  as 
the  circumcised  ofifspring  of  Abraham.     The  character  of 


£7-2 

the  persons  at  the  time,  and  the  occasisii  on  which  he  ad- 
'Iressed  them,  are  a /proof  that  he  spoke  of  them  only  as 
-uch. — ''Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  your  fathers,  saying  unto 
Abraham,  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth 
be  blessed."  On  the  other  hand,  when  Paul  says.  Gal. 
3:  7,  "They  that  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of 
Abraham?"  and  in  verse  29,  "If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are 
ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise;" 
\ve  are  to  understand  him  as  speaking  of  the  spiritual  seed 
of  Abraham'  who  are  entitled  to  eternal  life  in  consequence 
•f  their  faith,  and  the  infallible  promise  that  "He  that  be« 
Iieveth  shall  be  saved."  Submitting  these  remarks  to  your 
consideration,  I  shall  bid  you  adieu  at  present,  v/ith  a 
promise  of  considering  youi  reinainins;  objections  if^  the 
r:'^xt  letter. 


LETTER  il. 

THE  second  point  of.  difference  betweea  us  respects* 
The  qualifications  which  the  scriptures  require,  to  entitle 
adult  persons  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  I  have  said  in 
the  third  letter,  'Hhat  I  consider  baptism  as  primarih^  de- 
signed for  introducing  into  the  church,  sinners  who  are 
possessed  of  what  is  usually  styled  a  speculative  faith  in 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion,  ac- 
companied with  a  sense  of  guilt,  and  of  their  need  of  a 
saviour;  and  that  it  is  one  of  the  means  through  v/hich  the 
enlightening  and  renewing  iniiuences  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  communicated  to  such."     . 

To  this  you  say  "you  cannot  subscribe"  for  the  fjilovv- 
ing  reasons. — '^That  the  state  of  a  person  not  possessing 
saving  faith  is,  that  he  is  a  child  of  v/rath — that  the  law  of 
God  requires  every  sinner  to  accept  the  blessino-s  revealed, 
and  offered  in  the  Gospel — that  a  speculative  laith  cannot 
answer  the  divine  requisition,  nor  deliver  from  the  punish- 
ment due  to  unbelief — that  it  is  disobedience  to  God,  and 
dis])leasing  to  him,  and  cannot  therefore  be  a  true  requisite 
entitling  us  to  any  ordinance — and  that  God  in  tlie  scrip- 
tures, requires  no  other  kind  of  faith  and  repentance,  tlian 
a  living  faith  and  evangelical  repentance,"  p.  257—9. 

Was  I  disposed  to  divert  the  mind  of  the  reader  fi'om 
the  point  at  issue,  I  migiit  here,  like  Mr.  Campbell,  cry 
out — ' 'misrepresentation— misrepresentation;"  and  con- 
jure up  against  you,  as  many  alledged  instances  of  misrep- 
resentation, as  he  has  conjured  up  against  myself  in  his 
tiTRicTUREs,  and  ANIMADVERSIONS.  But  as  the  candour, 
and  decency  of  expression  manifested  throughout  your  let- 
ter, have  convinced  me  that  you  had  no  such  design,  I  have 
imputed  some  of  the  objections  in  the  preceding  quotations 
to  misapprehension,  or  inattention,  and  not  to  any  design 
of  mistating,  or  misrepresenting  the  question  between  -\in. 

The  question  is  not — docs  a,  speculative  faith  interest  in 
the  blessings  purchased  by  the  death  of  Chrisij-or  is  it 
productive  of  good  works.  I  have  said  distinctly  in  that 
letter  and  elsewhere,  that  it  cannot;  and  that  without  a 
living  faith  tliere  canaot  be  any  acceptable  approach  to  the 


2r4 

i  able  of  the  Lord.  But  the  question  is^  does  a  speculative 
f^ith  accompanied  with  a  sense  of  guilt,  and  a  sense  of  the 
necessity  of  an  interest  in  the  merits  of  the  divine  redeem- 
er in  order  to  salvation,  entitle  an  unbaptized  adult  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  You  say  that  it  cannot;  nor  to  any 
other  divine  ordinance.  You  will  admit  that  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel  is  a  divine  ordinance,  or  as  it  is  styled 
hj  an  apostle,  '*a  dispensation  of  God,"  and  '*a  dispensa- 
tion of  the  grace  of  God;''  and  that  to  hear  it  preached  is  at 
the  same  tirne  our  duty  and  privilege.  Now,  is  a  living 
faith,  aiid  evangelical  repentance  necessary  prerequisites 
to  entitle  sinners  to  hear  the  Gospel  preached;  and  the 
apostle  tells  us  in  1.  Cor.  1:  IT,  that  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  is  an  ordinance  of  f:ir  greater  importance  in  the 
economy  of  grace  than  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  The 
same  apostle  tells  us,  that  a  speculative  faith  is  not  even 
necessary  to  entitle  sinners  to  hear  the  Gospel  preached; 
for  '*how  (saith  he)  shall  they  believe  on  him  of  whom  they 
have  not  heard" — and  faith,  (whatever  its  character  may 
be,)  ^'Cometh  by  hearing  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God." 
Since  then,  an  attendance  on  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
is  an  ordinance  of  far  greater  importance  in  the  economy 
of  grace  thanfne  ordinance  of  baptism;  it  may  folio v/  that 
a  sneculative  faith  may  entitle  an  adult  to  that  ordinance; 
gnd  that  it  does,  I  think  I  have  shewn,  and  I  hope  I  will 
still  more  clearly  shew. 

Nor  is  a  speculative  faith  '^disobedience  to  God,"  and 
*  -displeasing  to  him."  I  am  persuaded  that  on  ccol  reSec- 
tion,  you  v/ill  not  say,  that  it  is  "disobedience  to  God,  and 
displeasing  to  him,"  to  believe  that  lie  is  such,  as  he  has 
exhibited  himself  in  bis  own  v/ord- — to  believe  that  Jesus 
Christ  i«  the  onty  saviour  of  sinners — that  we  are  guilty/ 
and  morally  pcUuted,  and  impotent  dinners— and  that 
without  an  interest  in  the  merit  of  his  biood,  and  the  re- 
newing energies  of  his  A]m!,g;hty  spirit  we  must  inevitably 
perish.  In  ansv^^er  to  an  objection  stated  in  the  close  of 
the  letter  already  referred  to,  I  liave  shewn,  I  trust,  that 
God  in  his  holy  word,  requires  of  us  to  believe  all  this,  and 
that  not  to  believe  it  constilutes  the  awfid  sin  of  ialidelity; 
and  that  until  we  believe  this  we  \yiU  never  see  our  need 
of  his  son  as  a  saviour,  nor  prize  i^he  red  eun^tion  purchased 
l)y  his  blood.  But  God  requires  of  us  to  believe  more  than 
thisc     lie  requires  of  \xi  to  exercise  that  faith j  '^ which  re- 


Xi/0 


ceives  and  rests  upon  Clirist  for  salvation,  as  he  is  oifered 
to  us  in  the  Gospel  |"  and  not  to  do  so,  is  * 'disobedience  to 
God"  indeed.  Tiiis,  I  believe  is  what  jou  meant  when 
you  said  that  a  speculative  faith  is  "disobedience  to  God, 
and  displeasing  to  himj"  but  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
present  inquiry.  The  present  inquiry  is;  is  the  faith  sty- 
led the  faith  of  God's  elect,  a  necessary  qualification  to 
entitle  an  adult  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  You  aiSrni 
that  it  L'  for  the  reasons  examined,  but  how  inadequate  they 
are  to  prove  your  position,  you  cannot  but  now  see. 

As  an  argument  that  Jehovah  did  not  require  a  living- 
faith  as  a  prere<|uisite  qualification  for  induction  into  his 
church,  it  was  observed  in  the  same  letter,  ''that  when  he 
saw  fit  that  the  church  should  assume  a  more  visible  and 
compact  form  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  he  expressly  com- 
manded, that  not  only  tliat  distinguished  Patriarch  him- 
self, with  all  his  male  seed,  but  that  all  born  in  his  house, 
or  bought  with  his  money  from  any  stranger,  should  also  be 
introduced  into  the  church  by  circumcision;  and  the  Pedo- 
-baptist  reader  was  asked,  if  lie  could  believe  that  all  thescj 
with  all  tiieir  countless  offspring  until  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah,  Vv'cre  true  believers.*' 

To  this  you  reply  in  p.  259  by  saying,  "that  true  holiness 
which  could  have  no  existence  without  a  saving  faith,  was 
required  in  the  very  introduction  of  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision;" and  as  a  proof  you  adduce  Gen.  17:  1,  "walk 
btfore  m.e,  and  be  thou  perfect" — "that  all  the  subjects  of 
that  covenant  were  bound  to  do  so;  and  that  of  this  they 
made  a  publick  profession  when  they  vrere  circumcised." 

That  all  ^^  ho  enjoy  the  light  of  divine  revelation  are 
thereby  brought  under  obligations  to  exercise  that  faith  in 
Christ  which  issues  in  holiness;  and  that  all  the  circuuici- 
sed,  and  all  the  baptized  are  under  the  same  obligations, 
in  an  especial  manner,  is  readily  admitted.  But  this  is 
not  the  question;  nor  is  the  injunction  on  Abraham  'Ho  walk 
before  God,  and  to  be  perfect,"  to  the  point;  for  he  v/as  a 
true  believer  before  he  was  circumcised.  But  the  question 
is,  did  Jehovah  require  a  living  faith  of  all  whom  he  com- 
manded to  be  circumcised.  If  so,  then,  all  the  male  ser- 
vants of  Abraham,  who  amounted  to  the  number  of  318 j 
together  with  all  the  adult  males  who  passed  over  Jordra 
with  Joshua,  amounting  to  upwards  of  600,000,  were  all 
■true  believers:  for  Jehovah  expressly  commanded  the  for- 


mev  to  be  circinricised  as  well  as  Abrabaiii  hiinselii  lun 
would  he  suifer  the  latter  to  enter  the  promised  land  until 
they  were  circumcised  in  the  canip  at  Gilgal;  Josh.  chap.  5. 

1  have  indeed  seen  it  alledged,  that  in  the  29th  chapter 
of  Deuterononiy,  they  had,  a  year  previous  to  th.is,  entered 
into  a  covenant  Vvith  Jehovah,  and  that  this  v/as  a  profes- 
sion of  true  piety,  or  of  a  living  faitli.  It  is  enough  to  say, 
that  it  was  the  Sinai  covenant  that  is  referred  to  in  that 
chapter,  and  whatever  its  character  may  have  been,'it  was 
made  not  only  with  the  adult  males^  ''but  with  their 
wives  and  little  onesi  witli  the  stranger  or  heathen  man 
that  vvas  in  their  camp,  fiom  the  hewer  of  wood  to  the 
drawer  of  watery"  yea  v.iih  the  children  of  the  Jews  that 
were  yet  to  came  into  existence;  and  cannot  therefore  be 
adduced  as  a  proof  of  the  profession  of  individual  personal 
piety  in  the  adult  males  in  order  to  their  being  circumci- 
sed. As  observed  in  the  preceding  letter,  it  seems  to 
have  been  a  national  covenant,  in  v»hich  Jehovah  condes- 
cended to  be  their  civil  governor,  and  to  govern  them  by 
the  laws  which  he  had  revealed  and  which  were  best  suited 
to  their  character,  and  in  whicli  they  engaged  to  obey  those 
laws,  and  to  respect  and  attend  upon  the  religious  ordi- 
nances w^hich  he  had  appointed.  Let  it  also  be  remem- 
bered that  the  generation  of  Jews  with  whom  the  Sinai  cov- 
enant was  first  riiade  had  been  circumcised  previous  to  the 
making  of  that  covenant. 

But  net  only  must  the  male  adult  generaticn  of  Jew^s 
wdiich  passed  over  Jordan  liave  been  all  ti-ue  believers,  ac- 
cording to  your  system;  but  as  i  expect  you  apply  your 
rule  cf  qualification  for  adults,  to  the  fathers  of  families 
amongst  them;  then,  every  father  of  a  family  from  Abra- 
ham to  Christ  must  have  Ijeen  true  believers  also;  for  Je- 
hovah as  expressly  commanded  them  to  circumcise  their 
male  infants,  under  the  penalty,  "that  the  uncircumcised 
Kianchild  yculd  becutoft'from  the  people  of  God,"  or  not 
acknovdedged  as  members  of  his  church."  I  am  persuaded 
that  when  you  look  closely  at  the  above  facts,  jou  cannot 
believe,  and  will  not  say,  that  the  foregoing  countless  mul- 
titude were  all  true  believers;  but  it  must  liavebeen  so,  if 
your  system  is  nglii.'—Credat  Judsetis  Apella. 

It  will  not  relieve  your  system  from  the  above  inadmis- 
sible consequences  to  say,  as  you  have  said  repeatedly  in 
your  l>ook,  that  Jehovah  required  a  profession  af  a  living 


27f 

faith  from  them,  and  that  this  profession  entitled  them  to 
circumcision  I  for  is  it  not  virtually  saying,  that  although 
He  required  this  faith,  he  was  yet  satisfied  with  the  pro- 
fession of  it.  Ask  yourself  if  this  can  comport  with  his 
character  as  exhibited  in  his  holy  word;  and  let  it  be  re- 
membered that  Jehovah  expressly  commanded  the  male 
servants  of  Abraham,  and  the  600^000  Jews  at  Gilgal  to  be 
circumcised,  without  any  reference  to  their  characters  as 
really  pious, — The  command  to  every  father  of  a  family  to 
circumcise  his  male  infants  was  equally  express. 

As  a  proof  that  the  church  was  designed  to  be  the  usual 
birth  place  ^f  the  children  of  grace,  I  referred  to  Psalm  87; 
5 — "And  of  Zion  it  shall  be  said,  that  this  man,  and  that 
man  was  born  in  her,  and  the  Highest  himself  shall  estab- 
lish her."  To  which  was  added  Gal.  4:  26,  where  "Jeru- 
salem," or  the  church,  "which  is  above,  and  is  free/'  is 
said  to  be  "the  mother  of  us  all. " 

'  To  this  you  reply  by  telling  mc,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of 
IvloLiEKus,  with  whom  it  seems  you  agree,  that  thedoctrine 
taught  in  the  first  of  these  passages  is — ^'that  in  a  day  of 
the  reviving  of  the  ciiurch,  converts  of  every  nation  and 
tongue,  will  reckon  it  their  true  glory  to  become  citizens 
of  Zion,  and  consider  it  as  truly  their  native  kingdom,  as  if 
they  had  been  born  Jews,  and  had  Abraham  for  their  mitu- 
ral  father.*'  Be  it  so;  but  does  tliis  exclude,  or  destroy 
the  primary  and  prominent  idea  in  the  passage,  that  they 
were  born  in  Zion,  or  the  church.  And  that  it  is  a  spiri- 
tual, and  not  a  natural  birth  that  is  alluded  to,  is  apparent 
from  a  parallel  passage  in  Isai.  66 :  7,  where  the  prophet 
s=peaking  of  a  day  of  the  reviving  of  the  church  says — "Who 
hath  seen  such  a  thing?  Gr  who  hath  heard  such  a  thing? 
Shall  the  earth  be  made  to  bring  fortii  in  one  day?  Or  shall 
a  nation  be  born  at  once?  for  as  soon  as  Zion  travailed,  she 
brought  forth  children. " 

You  tell  me  also  that  the  second  passage,  Gal.  4:  25,  h 
much  of  the  sam.e  impoit  as  Psalm  87:  5.  It  is  indeed  so 
as  I  understand  both  passages,  but  surely  not  as  you  under- 
stand them;  or  as  importing  only  that  it  is  an  honor  to  be 
enrolled  amongst  the  citizens  of  Zion.  It  simply  says, 
that  "Jerusalem,"  orthe  church,  "is  the  Mother  of  us  all," 
or  the  usual  birthplace  of  the  children  of  grace.  And  here 
Sir,  permit  me  to  observe,  tliat  these  two  passages  when 
taken  in  connection,  or  even  viewed  separately,  erase  th" 
25 


278 

foundation  of  not  only  the  Baptist  system,  but  the  founda- 
tion of  the  system  of  those  Pedobaptists  who  contend  with 
you  that  unbaptized  adults  must  be  "born  again"  in  the 
visible  kingdom  of  darkness  before  they  are  planted  in  the 
**^dneyard,"  or  the  church  of  God.  You  appear  sensible 
of  their  force,  and  to  induce  me  to  adopt  that  interpreta= 
ti on  which  you  have  given  them,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  one 
which  I  have  offered,  you  ask  me  in  the  same  page,  *'if  I 
would  not  consider  the  promise  equally  accomplished  in 
the  admission  of  those  regenerated  before  they  are  admit- 
ted into  the  church,  as  I  would  of  those  converted,  after 
they  become  members. "  I  cannot  Sir,  admit  any  such  in- 
terpretation of  those  passages;  for  the  promise  implied  in 
them,  is  a  promise  of  regeneration  to  those  who  are  in  Zion^ 
and  I  know  not  that  there  is  any  promise  of  regeneration 
to  those  who  are  not  in  Zion,  or  the  church.  I  admit,  and 
I  rejoice  that  it  is  the  case,  that  many  arej:'egenerated  out 
of  the  church.  It  displays  at  the  sametime,  the  sovereign- 
ty, and  boundless  extent  of  divine  grace,  and  it  might  bs 
worth  while  to  enquire,  if  one  reason  why  it  is  so,  maj  not 
be,  that  the  officers  of  the  church  keep  out  those  whom  its 
head  designed  should  be  within  her  pale,  and  under  her  cul- 
ture and  controul.  While  on  the  one  hand  an  indiscrimi- 
nate admission  is  hurtful  to  the  interests  of  religion;  on  tlie 
other  hand  keeping  oiit  those  wl\o  ought  to  be  admitted,  is 
adverse  to  the  advancement  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom. 

Rom.  11:  20,  was  adduced  as  another  argument  why  a 
living  faith  was  not  requireid  as  a  prerequisite  qualification 
for  admittance  into  the  church.  Addressing  the  Gentile 
converts  to  Christianity,  the  apostle  tells  them  in  regard 
to  the  Jews — '*Vv  ell  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken 
off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith;  be  not  high-minded  but 
fear."  From  these  words  it  was  argued,  that  the  faith,  by 
which  the  Jews  once  stood,  was  a  speculative  faith,  or  a 
faith  that  could  be  and  was  lost,  but  that  this  is  not  the 
case  with  the  faith  of  God's  elect;  and  that  the  Gentile 
converts  now  stand  by  the  same  faith,  by  which  the  Jew 
once  stood. 

To  this  you  reply  by  telling  me  in  p.  262,  "that  unbe- 
lief is  not  the  contrary  of  a  speculative, but  of  a  true  faith, 
but  the  Jews  substituted  unbelief  for  its  contrary,  and 
therefore  were  broken  oif  from  the  church." 


That  UKBELiEF  is  used  as  the  contrary  of  a  true  faith  is 
admitted,  as  in  2  Cor.  6:  14 — "What  concord  hath  Christ 
with  Belial,  or  he  that  believeth  v/ith  an  infidel,"  or  un- 
])eliever.  But  that  it  is  also  used  as  the  ''contrary"  of 
a  speculative  faith  is  evident  to  myself  from  a  consi'dera- 
tion  of  the  foUov,  ing  facts.  We  are  told  in  the  14th  chap- 
ter of  Exodus,  that  the  generation  of  Jews  which  came  out 
of  Egypt,  ^  Relieved  the  Lord  and  his  servant  Moses," 
as  a  typical  Redeemer,  when  they  saw  the  Red  Sea  divi- 
ded by  the  rod  of  Moses,  and  they  passed  through  on  dry 
land,  wliile  the  Egyptians  were  immersed  in  a  watery  grave. 
And  yet  this  same  generation  were  denied  an  entrance 
into  the  promised  land  on  account  of  their  unbelief. — "They 
could  not  enter  in  (says  the  apostle)  because  of  unbelief.^'' 
And  vvhat  now  was  the  unbelief  on  account  of  which  they 
perished  in  the  wilderness,  and  was  the  reverse  of  that  belief 
which  they  liad  exercised  on  occasion  of  their  deliverance 
at  the  Red  Sea?  Their  distrusting  the  promise  and  power 
of  Jehovah  as  a  deliverer,  in  consequence  of  v/hich  they  re- 


nounced his  Vt'orship  and  service,  and  trusted  in  and  wor- 


say,  that  the  belief,  or  faith  v/hich  is  predicated  of  the 
mass  of  the  Israelites  at  the  Red  Sea,  was ''a  true  faith." 
itis  true  they  repented  of  their  base  idolatry  on  that  occa- 
sion, in  consequence  of  which  they  were  spared  as  a  na- 
tion, and  not  cutoi?  fi-om  the  covenant  of  circumxision; 
but  the  most  unbounded  charity  will  not  say,  that 'at  the 
period  alluded  to,  they  were  true  believers,  a  few  except- 
ed; and  let  it  be  remembered  that  it  is  said  of  them  at  the 
Red  Sea,  "that  they  believed  the  Lord,  and  his  servant 
Moses." 

In  addition  to  this  I  v/ould  observe  that  the  generation 
which  lived  in  the  days  of  Christ  were  not  prone  to  idol- 
atry; for  the  captivity  at  Babylon  had  cured  them  as  a  na- 
tion cf  any  inclination  to  that  flagitious  sin.  On  the  con- 
trary they  firmly  believed  that  Jehovah  v/as  the  only 
true  God,  and  they  externally  worshiped  him  agreeably  to 
his  ov/n  institutions.  They  also  believed  that l.he  scrip- 
tures of  the  old  testament  were  a  revelation  from  heaven; 
and  they  farther  believed  that  their  God  would  according 
P)  the  prophecies,  send  them  a  Redeemer.     But  when  that 


;^80 

iledeemer  came,  for  reasons  which  we  shall  shortly  rneii  - 
lion,  "they  received  him  not,"  but  crucified  him  as  an 
impostor,  and  persevered  in  that  wicked  opinion.  This 
sealed  their  doom  as  a  nation,  and  a  visible  church,  as 
they  virtually  rejected  Jehovah  in  rejecting  his  Son,  and 
they  WTre  cut  off  from  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and 
perished  in  the  most  miserable  manner  by  the  Roman  ar- 
mies under  Titus.  I  again  appeal  to  you,  sir,  if  you  can 
believe,  that  that  generation,  with  the  exception  of  the 
* 'remnant,"  and  thos^  who  afterwards  received  Christ  in 
liisreal  character,  were  true  believers;  and  if  the  "unbe- 
lief" on  account  of  which  they  were  "broken  oif  from  the 
good  olive  tree,"  must  not  be  understood  as  the  opposite 
of  that  doctrinal  faith,  which,  while  they  and  their  fathers 
retained,  entitled  them  to  a  standing  in  the  visible  church 
of  God:  and  farther,  if  it  is  not  apparent  from  the  forego- 
ing considerations  and  facts,  that  that  faith  was  the  prere- 
quisite qualification  for  admission  into  the  cliurch.  I  hope 
that  I  will  not  be  understood  as  saying,  that  the  Jews  in 
their  several  generations  had  no  otiier  kind  of  faith.  There 
were  true  believers  amongst  them  in  every  age,  and  this 
has  been  and  will  be  the  ca^  vv'herever  the  ordinances  of 
the  true  religion  are  administered;  but  the  number  of  such 
was  comparatively  small,  and  therefore  their  enjoying  the 
means  of  grace,  until  they  rejected  Jehovah  in  rejecting 
his  son,  w  as  ov/ing  to  their  believing  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  Jewish  theology. 

You  object  also  to  the  intei-pretation  which  I  have  given 
to  the  verb  metanoesale  in  Acts  2:  38,  as  importing  in  my 
opinion,  a  change  of  mind  in  the  Jews  in  regard  to  the 
character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth;  and  you  tell  me,  "that 
according  to  the  interpretation  which  I  have  given  to  the 
word,  it  implies  in  it  nothing  more  than  they  had  been  al- 
ready convinced  of  by  Peter's  sermon;"  as  it  is  said  in 
Ihe  S7th  verse,  "that  when  they  heard  this,"  or  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah,  '^they  v.  ere  pricked  in  their  hearts,  and 
^^aidto  Peter  and  t-o  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  men  and  bre- 
ihren  what  shall  w^e do." 

The  objection  was  not  unexpected;  but  I  trust  that  the 
following  remarks  and  considerations  wall  remove  it.  For 
Uiis  purpose  1  would  observe,  that  although  the  Jews  ex-^ 
pected  a  king  Messiah,  yet  in  the  day  in  which  he  appear- 
ed, they  had.  (with  a  few  exceptions)  very  unscriptural  and 


281 

unw.orthy  ideas  of  his  character,  and  of  the  kingdom  which 
he  would  set  up  amongst  them.  From  a  mistaken  view, 
and  application  of  the  prophecies  concerning  him  as  a  king 
and  conqueror,  they  expected  him  as  a  temporal  king  and 
a  temporal  conqueror,  who  would  rescue  them  from  the 
Roman  yoke,  and  advance  their  nation  to  the  highest  pitch  of 
temporal  power  and  grandeur.  Hence  then  we  are  told, 
that  on  occasion  of  one  of  his  stupendous  miracles,  they 
attempted  "to  take  him  by  force,  and  to  make  him  a  king," 
And  not  only  was  this  the  opinion  of  the  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  also  of  his  own  immediate  disciples  until  other- 
wise instructed;  witness  the  saying  of  two  of  them  on  their 
way  to  Emmaus — ''We  trusted  that  it  had  been  He  who 
would  have  redeemed  Israel,"  Luke  M:  21. 

It  is  now  apparent  fi'om  the  foregoing  observations  and 
facts,  that  Peter  had,  and  must  have  had  two  great  objects 
in  view  when  he  addressed  the  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. The  first  wa&  to  convince  them  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah,  and  the  second  to  instruct  them  with  regard  to 
the  nature  and  character  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  He 
succeeded  in  the  first  by  appealing  to  the  mighty  miracles 
wrought  by  him,  and  the  prophecies  of  David  concerning 
him  in  the  Psalms.  The  idea  of  crucifying  as  an  impostor 
the  person  of  whom  they  had  conceived  the  most  exalted 
ideas,  and  from  whom  they  expected  such  earthly  power 
and  pre-eminence,  ''pricked  them  to  the  heart,  and  they 
said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  "Men,  and 
brethren  what  shall  v/e  do. "  Knov/ing  at  the  time,  that 
such  a  saviour  as  they  expected  their  Messiah  would  be, 
could  be  of  no  avail  to  them  and  to  others  considered  as  sin- 
ners, Peter  embraced  the  fovourable  opportunity  of  unde- 
ceiving them  on  this  very  interesting  point,  and  also  of  in- 
stiucting  them  with  regard  to  the  kingdom  which  he  wa,s 
about  to  establish.  Hence  then  he  s,aid,^-metanoesate^  or 
change  your  minds  on  this  subject,  and  in  regard  to  this 
Jesus.  He  is  a  spiritual  and  not  a  temporal  saviour;  and 
as  ye  would  be  saved  by  him  from  deserved  wrath,  and 
from  sin,  then,  "Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  his  name 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  for  the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  3'our 
Giiiidren,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Ltord  our  God  shall  call."  As  it  will  be  admitted,  and 
<r  annot  be  denied,  that  the  word  is  frequently  used  in  the 


£82 

above  sense,  tliis  Ifniiik  is  its  obvious  meaning  in  that  pas 
sage,  demanded  alike  by  a  consideration  of  the  opinion 
which  the  Jevvs  entertained  of  their  Messiah  at  that  time, 
and  the  objects  which  Peter  reiist  have  had  in  view  when 
he  addressed  them  on  that  interesting  occasion. 

I  have  seen  it  however  lately  affirmed  by  a  writer  in  the 
Pittsburg  Recorder,  "that  the  two  objects  which  I  sup- 
pose Peter  had  in  view  are  one  and  the  same;  for  by  per- 
suading the  Jews,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  he  at  once 
overturned  their  preconceived  opinions  with  respect  to  his 
character. '' 

I  think  I  need  scarcely  observe,  that  fae  two  objects  arc 
perfectly  distinct — as  distinct  as  any  two  objects  can  be. 
And  if  we  are  to  judge  of  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  on  .hat 
point,  by  that  of  the  disciples,  zhe  circumstance  of  Jesus  ' 
arising  from  the  dead,  and  that  too  by  his  own  intrinsic 
power,  instead  of  "overturning"  their  expectations  from 
him  as  a  temporal  redeemer,  it  was  ratlier  calculated  to 
increase  them;  for  w^e  are  told  that  in  one  of  the  interviev/s 
which  they  had  with  him  between  his  resurrection  and  as- 
cension, the  disciples  asked  him  saying,  ''Lord,  wilt  thou 
at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel."  Perhaps  it 
may  be  said  that  at  the  time  Peter  addressed  the  Jews,  Je- 
sus had  ascended  into  Heaven,  and  this  circumstance  was 
calculated  to  dissipate  their  expectations  from  him  as  st 
temporal  saviour.  It  might  have  had  that  effect,  had  they 
not  known  that  Jehovah  had  acted  for  many  years  as  the 
temporal  king  and  protector  of  their  nation;  this  consider- 
ation then  would  inspire  the  hope  that  Jesus  who  they  w^ere 
then  convinced  w^as  the  ?dessiah,  and  who  as  the  Messiah 
is  frequently  spoken  of  by  the  prophets  as  their  king., 
w^ould  also  become  their  temporal  king  and  saviour,  pro- 
■vided  they  could  obtain  forgiveness  for  crucifying  him  as 
an  impostor,  and  from  this  it  would  seem  arose '  'thepricking 
in  their  hearts,"  and  their  S8,ying  "men  and  brethren, 
what  shall  we  do."  And  to  this  I  would  add,  that  as  an 
evangelical  repentance  implies  in  it  ''an  apprehension  of 
the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ;"  and  as  the  Jews  at  the  time 
Peter  addressed  them  had  no  view  of  their  Messiah  but  as- 
a  temporal  saviour,  it  was  therefore  indispensibly  necessa- 
ry to  undeceive  them  on  this  important  point,  before  he 
would  hold  out  Jesus  to  their  view  as  aSa^viourj-fromfhell, 
and  from  sin. 


£83 

i  lie  same  writer,  and  wlio  ur.dersltmds  the  verb  meian- 
t^esafe  in  the  passage  under  examination,  as  lai porting  an 
evangel-icai  repentance,  asks  by  waj  of  objection  to  the 
interpretation  which  I  have  given  it,-— "If.it  can  be  siipp6- 
seel  that  the  apostle  would  not  inculcate  the  necessity  of  an. 
evangelical  repentance  to  a  company  of  men  penetrated 
with  a  sense  of  guilt  and  danger,  and  crying  ont  with  all  ear- 
nestness, v/hat  shall  M'e  do." 

It  is  readily  admitted  that  they  would,  and  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  they  w^onld  not.  That  they  did  so,  is 
evident  from  what  we  are  told  in  the  40th  verse— "that 
with  many  other  words  did  Peter  testify  and  exhort,  saying, 
save  yourselves  from  this  untoward  generation."  And- 
thereis  no  doubt  but  that  in  those  "many  words,"  he  in- 
culcated  the  necessit}^  of  '^repentance  t-oward  God,  and  of 
faith  toward  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  but  who  does  not  see 
that  in  order  to  their  thus  repenting  and  believing,  it  was 
previously  necessary  to  convince  them  that  •  Jesus  was  a 
spiritual,  and  not  a  temporal  saviour.  I  have  assigned 
reasons  why  I  believe  that  this  was  the  apostle's  object  in 
the  38th  verse,  and  if  not  taught  in  that  verse,  I  know  not 
that  it  was  taught  on  that  occasion,  at  least  in  such  language 
as  the  Jevv'S  could  have  then  understood.  Perhaps  it  may 
be  thought  that  the  foregoing  doctrine  was  taught  in  the 
v/ords— "having  received  of  the  father  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost"  in^  the  S3d,  and  in  the  words — "God  hath 
made  that  same  Jesus  v/hom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord 
and  Christ,"  or  Messiah  in  the  36th  verse.  But  the  atten- 
tive reader  will  have  perceived,  that  it  is  the  miraculous  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  gift  of  tongues  that  are 
alluded  to  in  the  former  of  these  versesi  and  whatever  we 
with  our  superior  lights  may  think  we  can  see  in  the  words 
-'Lord  and  Christ"  in  the  latter  of  these  verses,  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed,  that  the  Jews  with  their  previous  conceptions 
of  the  Messiah  as  a  temporal  saviour  only,  could  understand 
them  as  importing  that  he  was  a  spiritual  saviour — In  my 
opinion  the  words  are  too  indefinite  to  convey  that  idea. 
Besides,  a  strict  attention  to  the  drift  of  the  apostle's  rea- 
soning in  his  first  address  to  the  Jews,  will,  I  think  convince 
the  unprejudiced  reader  that  the  apostle's  object  in  that 
address  was,  to  convince  them  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 
— that  he  had  arisen  from  the  dead,  and  ascended  into  hea- 
ven, and  had  received  all  pow^r  and  authority  from  the  fa  • 


•  '284 

tlier.  On  the  other  hand,  the  words  in  the' 58th  verse—- 
*  ^Repent,  or  change  your  7ninds,  and  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Jesu5  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  with  which  liis 
second  address  begins,  are  so  clear  and  definite,  as  could 
not  fail  to  convince  them  that  Jesus  was  a  spiritual  saviour; 
and  that  the  words  had  this  effect  is  evident  from  the  cir- 
cumstance of  their  immediately  submitting  to  that  ordi- 
nance, that  they  might  obtain  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the 
renovating  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  shall  only  farther  remark  on  this  objection,  that  when  I 
^vrote  the  third  letter  in  this  volume,  for  the  Presbyterian 
Magazine,  I  was  under  the  necessity  of  baing  as  concise 
as  possible,  and  therefore  omitted  the  observations  now 
made.  I  have  been  since  sensible  that  my  reasoning  and 
argument  on  the  preceding  point  in  that  letter  have  suffer- 
ed by  the  omissions  and  I  expected  that  some  person  who 
holds  the  system  v/hich  you  and  the  writer  alluded  to  ad- 
vocate, would  make  the  objections  which  you  have  made.  I 
trust  that  they  are  nov/  removed,  and  that  the  preceding 
observations,  and  the  objects  which  Peter  must  have  had  in 
view  when  he  addressed  the  Jews,  together  with  what  he 
says  in  regard  to  the  ordinance  itself,  have  convinced  you 
both,  that  the  verb  inetanoesate  is  to  be  understood  in  that 
passage  in  its  primary  meaning,  or  as  only  importing  '-a 

CHANGE  OF  MIND." 

In  connection  with  the  preceding  objection,  you  object 
also  to  ''the  construction"  which  I  have  given  in  the  same 
passage  to  the  words — "Be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins,"  as  importing  in  my  view,  that  Baptism  was  appoint- 
ed as  a  mean  through  which  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  renewing  and  sanctifying  in- 
fluences are  conveyed — '^Because  as  you  tell  us,  a  living 
faith  is  held  out  in  the  scriptures,  as  the  mean  of  interesting 
U3  in  the  merits  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  alone  can  re- 
move the  guilt  of  sin" — and  that  the  faith  and  repentance 
which  I  say  entitle  an  adult  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism^. 
*'can  be  only  badges  of  liypocrisy  in  regard  to  discipleship 
to  Christ." 

Whenever  a  writer  objects  to  the  intei'pretation  of  any 
passage  of  scripture  given  by  another,  it  is  always  expected 
that  he  will  give  what  he  thinks  is  the  true  interpretation. 
When  I  read  your  objection  I  locked  for  this,  but  I  Ipoked 


S85 

in  vain.  The  expressions,  '^be  baptized  {ov  the  reniiasion 
of  sins,"  are  not  insulated  expressions,  or  expressions  that 
occur  but  once  in  the  sacred  oracles.  Peter  uses  a  simi- 
lar expression  in  one  of  his  epistles  where  he  says,  "bap- 
tism doth  also  now  save  us;"  and  Anannias  when  he  said 
lo  Saul,  "arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  icash  away  thy  sins.'- 
I  would  now  ask  you,  Sir,  how  you  understand  such  ex- 
pressions; and  if  you  can  attach  any  meaning  to  them  con- 
sistent with  the  established  meaning  of  words,  but  that  bap- 
tism is  a  mean  through  which  the  Holy  Ghost  renews,  tne. 
heart  of  the  sinner,  and  works  that  faith  which  disposes 
him  to  receive  Christ  '^for  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and 
sanctification,  and  redemption."  Had  you  recollected 
that  there  is  a  figure  of  rhetorick  styled  Metonymy,  which - 
uses  the  adjunct  for  the  subject,  and  the  eSect  for  the 
cause,  you  would  not  have  \vritten  the  above  objection.  It 
is  obviously  used  in  this,  and  the  similar  passages  which  i 
Jia^'e  adduced.  Besides,  the  v/ords,  "and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  point  to  a  time  that  was  fu- 
ture; or  that  the  gift  v.as  to  be  received  after  they  were 
baptized. 

With  respect  to  the  objection,  that  a  doctrinal  faith," -and - 
a  s&nse  of  guilt,  "can  be  only  badges  of  hypocrisy^^in  a- 
disciple  of  Christ,"  the  objection  is  founded  on  the  mean- 
ing which  you  attach  to  the  word  "disciple. "  You  under- 
stand it  as  denoting  a  true  believer  only;  hvit  I  consider  it 
as  used  to  signify  not  only  a  true  believer,  but  one  who 
professes  a  desire  of  learning  in  the  school  of  Christ  the 
principles  of  his  divine  religion;  and  in  this  sense  the  word 
is  used  in  John  6:  66,  and  elsewhere.  The  twelve  who 
■were  called  to  attend  on  Christ's  person  and  ministry,  are 
called  disciples;  and  although  tliere  is  evidence  that  Na- 
thaniel was  a  good  man — "an  Israelite  indeed  in  Vvhom 
there  was  no  guile,"  previous  to  his  being  called  to  the - 
discipleship,  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  Vv^as  the  charac- 
ter of  them  all  when  they  began  to  follow  Christ;  and  that 
Judas  Iscariot  was  not  a  good  man,  is  beyond  all  perad- 
venture.  Hypocrisy  consists  in  a  person's  pretending  to 
be  what  he  is  not.  "Now  sir,  may  not  a  person,  although 
not  a  true  believer,  be  sincerely  desirous  of  learning  in  the 
Gchool  of  Christ,  or  the  church,  how  he  may  escape  the 
wrath  to  come,  and  the  things  that  belong  to  his  present 
and  future  happiness.     Were  the  Jews  hypocritical,  or  in- 


286- 

sincere,  when  Ihej  said  to  Peter,  and  to  (he  rest  ofthfc 
apostles,  «'men  andbretliren  v/hat  shall  we  do?"  Andv/as 
the  jailor  insincere  when  he  said  to  Paul  and  Silas — *SSirs>  . 
what  must  I  do  to  be  saved."  And  to  this  1  would  add. 
that  in  jour  reasonings  on  this  point,  you  take  it  generallj 
for  granted,  that  no  adults,  but  those  who  are  true  believ- 
ers have  a  right  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism;  but  that  is 
the  point  to  be  proved.  I  need  not  teli  you,  that  logicians 
call  this  mode  of  reasoning,  ^^petitio  principii,'^  or  a  beg- 
ging the  question. 

The  case  of  Simon  Magus  v^hich  you  select  as  a  proof  of 
hypocrisy,  because  Peter  said  to  him,  '»!  perceive  that  thy 
heart  is  not  right  with  God,"  is  nothing  v/hatever  to  the 
point  in  hand.  Admitting  that  Peter  meant  by  those  words 
that  he  was  a  hypocrite,  or  that  he  did  not  believe  what  he 
professed  to  believe;  they  prove  that  circumstance,  but  no- 
thing more;  but  that  your  objection  may  have  any  force, 
you  must  prove  that  ali  who  profess  a  faith  in  Christ,  as  the 
only  Saviour  of  sinners,  and  acknowledge  that  they  are 
guilty  sinners,  are-all  hypocritical — ^all  insincere. 

And  here  I  cannot  but  remark,  tiiat  I  was  somewhat 
surprised  when  I  saw  the  case  of  Simon  Magus  adduced 
as  an  argument  against  ihe  system  which  I  advocate,  as  in 
my  view  it  supports  it,  and  militates  against  that  for  which 
you  contend.  As  it  respects  adults,  you  contend  that  true 
believers  only  have  a  right  to.be  baptized.  A  hope,  that 
a  candidate  for  baptism,  if  a  stranger,  as  Avas  the  case  of 
Simon  Magus,  is  the  subject  of  a  living  faith,  cannot  be 
obtained  by  an  officer  of  the  church,  but  by  a  particular 
and  minute  conversation  with  the  candidate.  -  Now,  if 
Philip  by  whom  Simon  v/as  baptized,  entered  into  such  a 
conversation  with  him,  is  it  to  be  supposed,  that  Philip 
would  have  been  so  much  mistaken,  as  it  appears  he  was 
on  your  system,  respecting  Simon's  character  as  a  true 
believer.  It  would  seem  that  Simon  believed-^  and  pro- 
iessed  a  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  in  the  exis- 
tence and  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  it  seems  that  he 
confined  that  agency  to  his  m.iraculous,  and  not  to  his  illu- 
lainatingand  renewing  influences  in  the  Economy  of  grace. 
Hence  then  it  was  evident  that  he  v/as,  as  Peter  expressed 
it,  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity; 
and  hence  the  advice,  "to  repent  of  his  wickedness,"  in 
>upposing  that  the  spirit's  iniiuences  might  be  purchased, 


28r 

ijy  money,  ^'arid  to  pray  God,  \i perhaps  the  thought  of  his 
heart  might  be  forgiven  him." 

You  argue  also  that  the  Samaritans  were  true  believers^ 
or  professed  a  living  faith,  because  it  is  said  '*that  when 
they  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  concerning  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus,  they  were  bap- 
tized both  men  and  Vvomen."  Your  argument  lies  in  the 
words— ^'believing  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus,"  as  importing  that  they  be- 
lieved in  Jesus ^Ho  the  saving  of  the  soul."  Like  Philip 
you  are  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  and  1  trust  that  you 
preach  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
name  of  Jesus,  and  that  your  hearers  believe  iho^Q  things 
to  be  true.  I  would  now  ask  you,  if  you  consider  and  if 
you  believe  from  this  circumstance,  that  all  your  hearers 
are  all  true  believers.  A  candid  answer  to  the  question 
will  show  you  the  inconclusiveness  of  your  reasoning,  and 
the  consequent  invalidity  of  your  argument.  To  this  I 
would  add,  that  it  is  not  said,  that  the  Samaritans  "be- 
lieved in  Christ,"  words  v/hich  sometimes,  but  not  always, 
import  a  living  faiths  but  that-  "they  believed  Philip  when" 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jesus. "  -This  case,  in  my  viev/,  also  supports 
that  system  of  adult  baptism  which  I  advocate,  and  mili- 
tates against  that  for  which  j-cu  contend. 

In  p.  267,  you  say  that  the  v/ords  "If  thou  believest  with 
all  thine  heart"  in  Acts  8:  37?  mean  "a  faith  of  the  whole 
soul;"  and  as  a  proof  you  adduce  Luke  10:  27,  wmv^  it  is 
said  that  we  should  "love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our 
hearts,  and  with  all  our  souls,  and  with. all  our  strengthj, 
and  with  all  our  minds;"  whence  you  draw  the  conclusion 
that  no  adults  but  those  possessed  of  the  above  faith  should 
be  admitted  to  baptism. 

That  the  moral  law  requires,  and  justly  requires^  that 
we  should  love  the  Lord  our  God  to  "the  full  extent  that 
the  powders  of  the  human  soul  are  capable  of  exercising  that 
aifection^  as  the  words /te^f/,  mid^  sfrengih^  and  7nind  im- 
port, is  beyond  all  controversy.  But  do  true  believers  at- 
tain to  this  perfect  love  in  this  life?  It  is  the  attainment 
of  the  redeemed  in  heaven  only,  where  faith  is  swallowed 
».]p  in  vision,  and  love  by  fruition.  Nov/,  as  you  say,  that  the 
vv^ords  "with  all  tiiiue  heart,"  as  they  have  jrcference  to 
:£aith  in  Acts  8:  57,'wean.  the  same  thing  as  when  predicate 


^88 

fed  of  love  in  Luke  10:  27:  it  follows  I  tciink  from  your  ar- 
gument, that  a  perfect  faitli,  or  a  faith  that  excludes  all 
doubting,  is  requu'ed  of  adults  in  order  to  their  being  bap- 
tized. This  will  prove  too  much,  and  consequently  proves 
nothing  for  your  system. 

But  passing  this  byi  the  questbn  is,  what  are  we  to  un- 
derstand by  the  words  "with  ail  thine  heart"  in  Acts  8:  37. 
You-understand  by  them  a  living  faith  at  least,  from  v/hich 
you  draw  the  conclusion  that  no  adults,  but  those  who  are 
true  believers  ought  to  be  baptized.  I  have  examined  ail 
the  places  where  the  words  are  used  in  the  scriptures,  and 
it  appears  to  myself,  that  most  generally  they  denote  sin- 
cerity only;  and  sometimes  a  gracious"  sincerity,  and  at 
other  times  a  sincerity  that  is  not  of  a  gracious  character* 
In  this  latter  sense  they  are  certainly  used  in  Ezek.  36:  5, 
and  elsewhere.  In  the  third  letter  1  have  offered  reasons 
which  have  not  been,  and  which  1  think  cannot  be  contro- 
verted, why  I  believe  the  Eunuch  to  have  been  a  gracious 
man  or  a  true  believer,  previous  to  his  being  baptized;  and 
I  think  I  may  safely  assume  that  Philip  viev/ed  him  as  such. 
Now,  admitting  that  the  above  words  import  a  living  faitli 
in  Acts  8:  37,  your  argument  when  thrown  into  the  form 
of  a  syllogism  v^ill  stand  thus — The  Eunuch,  a  true  belie vei' 
requested  to  be  baptized  by  Philip;  but  Phitip  said  unto  him, 
if  thou  believcsl;  with  all  thine  heart,  or  with  a  living  faith, 
thou  may  est;  therefore  unbelieving  or  unregenerate  adults 
are  not  to  be  baptized.  You  cannot  but  nov/  see,  that  this 
syllogism  which  I  think  is  fairly  constructed  from  your 
argument  is  contrary  to  all  the  rules  of  righi  reasoning. 
The  conclusion  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  prem.ises;  and  the 
woi  ds  of  Philip  as  you  understa.nd  them,  morever  contain  a 
silliness  of  requisition  not  to  be  expected  from  him  from 
what  he  had  seen  and  known  of  the  Eunuch's  character. 
Was  there  such  evidence  that  the  Eunuch  vvas  an  unregen- 
erate person  previous  to  his  being  baptized,  as  there  is  that 
this  was  the  character  of  Simon  Magus;  and  Itad  Philip 
said,  "if  thou  believest  unto  righteousness" — words  which 
import  a  living  faitli,  it  would  prove  that  a  saving  faith  is 
required  of  adults  in  order  to  their  beir.g  baptized.  But 
as  the  words  "vvith  all  thy  heart,"  are  a  common  phrase- 
ology, denoting  sincerity,  whether  of  a  gracious,  or  not  of 
ii  gracious  character,  then,  as  observed  in  the  letter  refer- 
red to.  I  must  consider  Philip  a?  only  requiiing  a  Hncerc 


289 

belief  tliat  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  without  reference  to  the 
Eunuch's  character  as  a  true  believer.  I  need  scarcely  ob- 
serve, that  thousands  of  unregenerate  persons  have  believ- 
ed, and  do  believe  the  foregoing,  and  other  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  christian  religion^  a  living  faith  is  there- 
fore not  indispensibly  necessary  to  eveaa  sincei^e  belief  of 
those  doctrines.  They  believe  them,  because  the  evidence 
for  their  truth,  as  laid' down  in  the  scriptures,  is  so  clear 
and  forcible,  that  they  cannot  withhold  their  assent;  conse- 
quently no  legitimate  argument  can  be  drawn,  that  in  those 
words  Pliilip  meant  a  living  faith,  and  that  this  faith  is  an 
indispensible  prerequisite  to  entitle  an  adult  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism.  And  admitting  that  Philip  meant  a 
living  faith  in  those  words,  what  would  it  prove? — This 
only,  that  true  believers  have  a  right  to  be  baptized.  Per- 
haps in  logical  strictness,  all  that  can  be  legitimately 
drawn  from  the  passage  is,  that  a  pious  Jew,  or  any  other 
pious  unbaptized  person,  must  profess  a  belief  that  Jesus 
is  the  Son  of  God,  or  the  Messiah,  before  they  can  be  bap- 
tized. 

The  preceding  observations  are  applicable  to  the  baptism 
of  Lydia  mentioned  in  the  16th  chapter.  The  historical 
record  which  we  have  of  her,  short  as  it  is,  affords  the 
strongest  presumptive  evidence  that  she  was  also  a  pious 
person,  previous  to  her  being  baptized;  and  to  infer  from 
either  of  the  above  cases  that  unbelieving  or  unregenerate 
adults  are  not  to  be  baptized,  is  like  arguing,  that  because 
the  scriptures  require  faith  in  adults  in  order  to  their  bap- 
tism; therefore  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  because  they 
are  not  capable  of  believing.  The  fallacy  of  both  argu- 
ments liesm  this. — In  the  one,  an  idea  is  attached  to  the 
M^ord  FAITH  which  does  not  belong  to  it,  when  mentioned 
in  connection  with  baptism;  and  in  the  other,  it  is  taken  for 
granted,  that  none  should  be  baptized  or  introduced  into 
the  church  who  are  not  capable  of  believing. 

Your  last  objection  on  this  point  is — "that  my  views  of 
baptism  have  a  tendency  to  corrupt  the  church."  And  as  a 
proof  of  this  you  ask  me,  "what  object  can  be  gained  by 
planting  dead  trees  in  a  gjirden — trees  that  possess  no 
living  principle — you  may  water  and  dung  about  them,  they 
decay  the  more  speedily:  yet  you  allow  the  keepers  of 
Christ's  vineyard  to  fill  it  with  such  vines — ^people  hanng 
dnly  a  dead  faith." 
26 


290 

I  confess  that  I  was  also  surpiised  at  this  objection,  and 
the  argument  adduced  to  support  it.  It  is  the  very,  same 
which  Mr.  C.  brought  against  me  in  his  strictures,  and 
to  which  I  have  replied,  and  I  trust  answered  in  the  6th 
letter,  and  which  it  is  to  be  presumed  you  have  read;  and 
yet  you  repeat  the  objection,  without  attempting  to  shew 
that  the  answer  is  invalid.  It  was  observed  in  that  letter, 
that  although  the  powers  of  the  human  soul,  are  by  sin 
turned  aside  from  TTod  and  things  divine  as  the  supreme 
good,  yet  they  are  capable  of  being  turned  from  the  love 
of  sin,  and  of  this  world,  to  God,  by  an  agent  adequate  to 
the  important  work. — That  the  Spirit  of  God  is  that  agent; 
and  as  has  been  observed  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  di- 
vines, it  is  by  applying  the  awful,  but  rigliteous  penalty  of 
the  moral  law  to  the  passion  of  fear,  and  that  strong  love 
of  happiness,  and  aversion  to  misery,  which  are  so  deeply 
and  indelibly  ingrafted  in  our  nature,  that  the  almighty 
and  omniscient  spirit  convinces  the  sinner  of  sin,  and  in- 
duces him  to  enquire  '*v.hat  he  shall  do  to  be  saved." — - 
That  it  is  by  directing  the  attention  of  the  awakened  sinner 
to  the  character  of  the  Hedeemer  as  developed  in  the  scrip- 
tures, and  to  the  fitness  and  fulness  of  the  redemption 
purchased  by  his  blood,  that  this  same  sinner  is  disposed 
to  receive  and  rest  upon  him  as  "the  Lord  his  righteous- 
ness, and  his  strength." — And  that  it  is  by  directing  his 
attention  to  the  love  of  God  in  giving  his  son  '*to  die,  the 
just  for  the  unjust,"  that  tiie  same  .almighty  agent  melts  his 
bard  and  unfeeling  heart,  and  on  the  natural  principle  of 
gratitude,  ingrafts  the  divine  principle  of  love  to  God,  which 
dispo«;es  him  to  universal  obedience. 

And  ncv/  Sir,  yourself  being  judge,  what  analogy  is  there 
between  man,  who  altliough  a  sinner,  yet  possesses  all  the 
physical  powers  of  soul,  necessary  to  constitute  him  a 
moral  agent,  and  a  dead  tree  which  is  not  possessed  of  any 
living  principle,  and  which  'Hhe  more  it  is  watered  and 
dunged,  decays  the  move  speedih\"  The  rain,  and  deu", 
and  sunshine  of  heaven  cannot  have  any  effect  on  such  a 
tree,  'because  there  is  no  living  principle  whatever  that  can 
be  acted  upon.  But  this  is  not  the  case  with  man,  sinner 
as  he  is:  for  the  dev/s  and  sunshine  of  heavenly  grace  can 
make  the  morally  barren  powers  of  his  soijl,  ''to  bud  and 
blossom  as  the  rose,"  and  to  bring  forth  tlie  fruit  of  faitli 
and  love  divine,  to  the  praise  of  the  grace  of  God.     If  he 


291 

was  like  your  ''dead  tree,"  he  would  not,  could  not,  be  an 
accountable  creature 5  and  Christ  must  have  blamed  the 
Jews  unjustly  when  he  said — '%nd  ye  will  not  come  unto 
me,  that  ye  might  have  life."  They  possessed  all  the 
physical  powers  of  soul  necessary  for  moral  action;  but  they 
directed  those  powers  to  unsuitable  and  unworthy  objects, 
und  v/hich  is  indeed  the  case  with  every  sinner.  Ask 
yourself  if  your  ideas  on  this  subject  do  not  savour  of  ab- 
surdity,* for  as  far  as  I  do  understand  them,  you  consider 
man  as  both  physically  and  morally  dead,  in  regard  to  mor- 
al agency.  And  whatever  3'our  ideas  may  be,  ask  your- 
self farther,  if  they  do  not  lead  to  the  dreadful  vortex  of 
antinomianism  in  which  Mr.  C.  is  so  deeply  plunged;  for 
according  to  my  views  of  the  subject,  if  man  is  not  posses- 
sed of  physical  powers  of  soul  for  moral  action,  he  is  not 
accouiite.ble  for  his  actions- — he  is  physically  diiFerent  from 
his  progenitor  Adam. 

II aving  noticed,  and  I  would  hope  satisfactorily  answer- 
ed the  objections  which  you  have  brought  against  that  sys- 
tem of  adult  baptism  which  I  have  exhibited  in  the  third  let- 
ter; permit  me  now  to  state  a  few  of  the  difficulties  which  in, 
my  view  attend  the  system  for  which  you  contend.  You 
think  that  it  tends  "to  corrupt  the  church,"  to  admit  into 
it,  adults  of  the  character  which  I  have  frequently  men- 
tioned. You  are  a  Fedobaptist,  and  you  have  disputed 
and  written  in  favour  of  Pedobaptism.  Now  Sir,  how  is 
it  consistent  with  what  you  consider  the  purity  of  the 
church,  to  admit  into  it  infants,  wlio  have  been  '•'shapen 
in  iniquity,  and  conceived  in  sin,"  and  whose  hearts^  as 
well  as  the  hearts  of  unregenerated  adults  possess  a  prin- 
ciple of  '^enmity  against  God,"  and  are  consequently 
children  of  wrath  as  well  as  those;  and  I  need  not  tell 
you  that  in  the  Fedobaptist  churches  generally,  twenty,  if 
not  double  that  number  of  infants  are  baptized,  for  one 
adult.  While  I  was  of  your  opinion  on  tills  point,  I  often 
endeavoured  to  remove  this  difficulty,  and  as  often  failedj 
and  I  Vv'ill  tliank  you,  or  any  other  person  who  holds  your 
system  to  remove  it,  for  to  myself  it  is  insuperable,  and  v/as 
one  of  the  causes  which  led  me  to  call  in  question  your 
present,  ^nd  my  own  former  creed  on  this  point.  It  will 
not  remove  it  to  say,  that  infants  are  not  in  a  capacity  to 
evince  their  enmity,  for  they  do  it  as  soon  as  they  are  ca- 
pabk\  and  that  is  very  soon;  or  as  it  is  expressed  by  the 


;iyi<i 


Fgalmist — "they  are  estranged  from  the  very  wombj  they 
go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies."  Besides, 
if  that  principle  in  adults  stands  in  the  way  of  their  being 
admitted  into  the  church,  it  must  also  stand  in  the  way  of 
infants  being  admitted 5  for  the  circumstance  of  their  not 
being  capable  of  exercising  it,  does  not  alter  the  character 
of  the  principle  itself.  Nor  will  it  solve  this  difficulty  to 
say,  that  it  is  the  will  and  command  of  the  head  ol"  the 
church,  that  infants  shall  be  planted  therein  by  baptismf 
for  the  difficulty  or  rather  objection  to  your  system  has 
not  reference  to  his  will  or  command,  but  to  what  you  con- 
sider the  purity  of  the  church,  and  the  berieSts  accruing 
from  baptism  5  for  you  tell  me,  "that  it  cannot  be  of  any 
use  to  plant  dead  trees- in  a  garden — trees  that  possess  no 
principle  of  life— -and  that  it  is  a  speedy  method  to  corrupt 
the  church."  Nor  yet  will  it  remove  the  difficulty,  to  say,. 
that  it  is  in  consequence  of  the  faith  of  the  parent  that 
the  child  is  to  be  admitted  into  the  churchy  for  the  faith 
of  the  parent  cannot  change  the  principle  of  "enmity  a- 
gainst  God,"  in  the  child's  heart,  nor  can  the  regenerated 
parent  convey  regenerating  grace  to  his  child. 

•  But  this  is  not  the  only  difficulty  which  attends  your 
system.  You  will  agree  with  me,  that  the  essence  and  vali- 
dity of  baptism  consists  in  a  nt  subject,  and  in  water  be- 
ing applied  to  that  subject,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  lioly  Ghost,  by  a  lawful  minister  of 
the  gospel,  and  not  in  tlie  quantity  of  water  applied,  as  the 
Baptists  assert.  Indeed  from  the  whole  of  your  objections 
to  the  system  which  I  advocate,  I  should  suppose  that 
you  consider  the  validity  of  baptism  in  regard  to  adults, 
3s  depending  on  the  faith  of  the  persons  baptized;  for  you 
repeatedly  declare  in  p  265 :  that  it  cannot  be  of  any  use 
to  any  others.  Nov/  Sir.  according  to  my  views  of  cor- 
rect reasoning,  it  follows  from  your  system,  that  the  want 
of  a  living  faith  in  persons  baptized,  renders  the  ordinance 
invalid  to  such  persons;  and  that  where  there  is  evidence, 
or  even  strong  doubts  that  this  is  the  case,  such  persons 
ought  to  be  rebaptized,  but  not  until  they  have  an  assu- 
rance that  they  are.  possessed  of  the  faith  of  God's  elect. 
And  as  I  expect  that  you  apply  the  same  rule  to  parents 
who  have  had  their  children  baptized,  as  you  do  to  bapti- 
zed adults;  it  also  follows  I  think  from  your  system, 'that 

those  baptized  in  infancy  ought  to  be  rebaptized,  unlessy 


£93 

thjcy  have  a  full  assurance  that  their  parents  were  true  be- 
lievers at  the  time  they  presented  them  to  baptism;  but  as 
I  have  said,  not  until  they  themselves  are  assured,  or  have 
a  strong  ground  of  hope  that  they  are  the  subjects  of  an 
evangelical  faith. 

It  will  not  remove  these  difficulties  to  say.  that  according 
to  the  system  which  I  have  embraced,  none  but  true  be- 
lievers, or  those  v^ho  have  a  scriptural  ground  of  hope  that 
they  are  such,  ought  to  approach  the  table  of  the  Lord. 
They  ought  not,  and  I  have  shewn  that  all  others  are  ex- 
pressly prohibited .  The  faith,  ( v/hatever  its  character  may 
be,)  which  the  scriptures  mention  as  a  prerequisite  for  ad- 
mission to  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, is  certainly  required  by  the  head  of  the  church,  from 
these  to  vv'hom  these  ordinances  are  administered;  and  as 
already  observed,  to  say  that  he  accepts  of  the  profession 
of  it  in  the  stead  of  the  thing  itself,  is  highly  injurious  to 
his  character.  But  I  have  shev/n,  that  he  expressly  com- 
manded multitudes  to  be  circumcised  without  any  refer- 
ence to  their  character  as  the  subjectsof  a  living  faith,  and 
of  whom  none  v/ill  venture  to  say,  that  they  were  all  truly 
pious  at  the  time.  They  all  believed  that  Jehovah  was  the 
only  true  God,  and  that  the  ordinances  delivered  to  them 
by  Moses,  were  the  only  means  of  grace,  and  the  only  me- 
dium of  acceptable  worship,  inconsequence  of  which  they 
attended  on  tliose  means.  Upon  this  they  were  admitted 
into  the  church  by  circumcision;  and  this  I  think  should 
settle  the  question,  unless  it  can  be  shewn  that  there  were 
different  terms  of  admission  in  regard  to  the  state  of  the 
heart  under  the  diiYerent  dispensations  of  grace. 

Now,  that  a  state  of  heart  for  admissioji  to  the  ordinance 
of  the  Passover,  diiiyrent  from  that  which  entitled  to  the 
ordinance  cf  circumcision,  was  required,  and  acted  upon, 
is  apparent  from  various  considerations,  and  from  diiferent 
places  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially  from  the  pray= 
er  of  the  Good  Ki?ig  liezekiah  recorded  in  2  Chron.  30: 
18,.  19.  It  appears  froni  the  preceding  verses,  that  at  the 
solemn  passover  which  v/as  observed  after  he  came  to  the 
throne,  some  of  the  people  had  net  cleansed  themselvet 
according  to  the  requisitions  of  the  Levidcal  ritual.  "But 
Hezekiah  prayed  for  them,  saying,  "The  Good  Lord  par- 
don every  one  that  prepareth  his  heart  to  seek  God,  the 
Lord  God  of  his  fathersj  though  he  is  not  cleansed  accord- 


;iig  to  the  piiriiiGatioiiof  ,the  sanctiiarj.*'  I  trust  tha; 
there  are  none  who  uill  saj,  that  the  purification  alhided 
to  in  this  passage  had  not  reference  to  purity  of  heart. 
To  say  that  it  had  reference  to  the  washing  of  their  bodies 
and  garments  only,  would  be  a  reilection  on  the  character 
of  Jehovah  as  appointing  observajices  in  his  church  that 
had  not  reference  to  the  removal  of  guilt  and  moral  pollu- 
tion by  the  blood  an^l  spirit  of  his  son.  And  here  let  it  be 
remembered,  that  there  is  not  tlie  least  reference  to  the 
necessity  of  such  purification  when  Abraham's  adult  male 
household  v/ere  circumcised,  nor  yet  when  the  600,000 
Jews  were  circumcised  at  Gilgal. 

As  connected  v/ith  the  foregoing  observations,  I  would 
farther  remark  that  according  to  my  view  of  the  subject, 
the  baptism  of  infants  cannot  be  defended  on  your  system; 
or  at  least  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  for  it  must  be  a- 
bandoned.     You  and  others  v,'ho  diner  from  me  on  tins 
point,  admit  that  baptism  has  taken  the  place  cf  circumci- 
sion as  the  initiating  ordinance  into  the  church  of  God; 
but  as  just  now  observed,  the  adult  male  hous'^hold  of  A •• 
iDrahaiTi,  and  the  adult  male  generation  of  Jews  born  in  the 
wilderness,  together  with  their  male  children,  were  all  cirr 
cu'mcised  by  the  express  command  of  God  himself,  without 
apy  profession  of  piety  being  required  of  them,  either  as 
individuals,  or  as  parents.     When  I  look  at  these  facts  I 
cannot  see  how  you  can  defend  your  system,  but  by  alledg- 
ing  that  there  were  two  distinct  churches  of  God,  the  one 
not  requiring,  a  profession  of  a  living  faith  for  admittance, 
and  the  other  requiring  that  profession;  or  that  the  terms 
of  admission  v/ere  difierent  under  the  Abrahamic,  and  the 
christian  dispensations  of  grace.     The  first  of  these  allega- 
tions would  be  contrary  to  what  Christ  himself  under  the 
character  of  the  bridegroom  says  in  Song  6:9 — "My  Dove, 
ray  undefiled  is  but  one;"  and  the  other  to  what  the  apos- 
tle says  in  Horn.    11:  24.     As  more  than  once  observed, 
the  Apostle  in  that  chapter  holds  out  the  church  founded 
in  the  days  of  Abraham  on  the  covenant  of  circumcision  un- 
der the  metaphor  of  "a  good  Olive  tree;"  and  that  the  Jew^'i, 
the  natural  branches  of  that  tree,  'Hvere  broken  off  because 
of  unbelief."     In  the  verse  alluded  to  he  tells  us,  that 
when  the  Jews  shall  be  brought  to  see,  and  acknowledge 
that  Jesus  v.^as  the  Messiah,  ''Hhey  shall  be  grafted"-*-not 
into  another  '^OVive  tree,"  or  church,  but  into  that  very 


^95 

clmrcii  from  whicli  they  were  broken  off.— -^' And  lliey  it 
they  continue  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  into 
THEIR  OWN  OLIVE  TREE.  ^'  Now,  it  13  evltlent  to  myself 
that  this  declaration,  and  tliis  phraseology  clearly  imply 
that  the  Jews  when  converted  to  the  christian  faith,  shall 
not  only  be  grafted  into  the  church  of  God,  with  their  in- 
fant offspring  as  formerly;  but  that  they  themselves  will  be 
admitted  on  the  same  terms  on  which  their  fathers  were 
admitted  under  the  Abrahamic  dispensation  of  grace,  li 
not,  then  the  church  cannot  be  styled  their  ''own,"  but  a 
different  "Olive  tree,"  and  the  apostle  has  used  language 
calculated  to  deceive  them-r- but  tins  is  not  to  be  admitted. 
To  this  I  will  only  add,  that  the  intelligent  part  of  the 
Baptist  church  clearly  see,  that  the  qualificatioiis  v/hicli 
you  and  others  contend  are  required  of  adults  for  admis- 
sion into  the  church  under  the  present  dispensation  are  ve- 
ry dilTerent  from  those  Vv Inch  it  is  evideiit  from  the  facts  al- 
laded  to,  vvere  required  under  the  Abrahamic  dispensation, 
and  they  accordingly  ply  you  with  objections  in  regard  to 
your  reasonings  in  favour  of  infant  baptism  from  the  one 
dispensation  to  the  other,  which  you  cannot  answer.  Who- 
.  ever  has  read  the  writings  produced  from  time  to  time  on 
the  "Baptist  Controversy,"  ca.nnot  but  have  observed,  that 
the  Pedobaptist  writers  vvho  have  adopted  the  system  in 
regard  to  adults,  for  which  you  contend,  feel  liftinpered 
and  puzzled  whenever  they  approach  that  point.  Reason- 
ing as  they  do,  and  ought^  t'nat  as  infants  and  adults  were 
admitted  into  the  church  under  th^e  Abrahiitmic  dispensa- 
tion, they  are  botli  entitled  to  that  privilege  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation,  unless  it  is  proved  that  their  right  ha> 
been  revoked.  Eut  conscious  that  the  t«rms  on  vv'hich 
adults  were  admitted  under  the  one,  are  very  different 
from  the  terms  wiiich  they  say  are  required  for  admission 
under  the  other,  they  try  to  turn  aside  the  arrov/s  of  their 
assailants  by  saying,  that  their  opponents  must  admit, 
"that  the  Jews  were  in  some  seme  members  of  the  church 
of  God."  The  words,  "In  some  sense  members  of  the 
church  of  God,"  are  not  only  very  vague:  but  they  shev/ 
the  inconclusiveness  of  their  reasonings  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism^ from  the  one  dispensation  to  the  other,  and  I  am 
persuaded  has  made  hundreds  of  Baptists;  for  the  Jews 
either  v/erfe,  or  were  not  members  of  the  church- — there  is 
B )  middle  ground  on  wliich  they  could  possibly  stand.    But 


•i96 

a§  has  heiin  observed,  the  objections  of  Baptist  writeh^  or* 
this  point,  have  no  bearing  on  that  viev/  of  the  church  which 
I  have  exhibited  in  thesi  letters,  and  which  if  scriptural, 
as  I  believe  it  is,  erases  the  foundation  of  the  Baptist  sys- 
tem. It  would  seem  that  Mr.  Campbell  was  aware  of  this; 
forliUhough  I  have  called  upon  him  in  the  close  of  the  8th 
letter  to  examine  this  point  in  detail,  and  to  overturn,  if  he 
could,  my  reasonings  upon  it  from  the  word  of  God,  he 
has  nevertheless  entirely  overlooked  it,  notwithstanding 
he  says,  that  there  is  not  a  single  topic  advanced  by  me 
that  is  not  to  be  metv/ith  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Macalla, 
or  in  his  animadversions  on  the  eight  first  letters.  His  rea- 
sons for  overlooking  it  are  best  kno^vn  to  himself.  Was 
it  that  he  saw  that  the  arguments  were  stubborn,  and  that 
a  failure  ruined  his  system.^  You  have  however  thought 
proper  to  attack  those  arguments;  and  v/hether  you  have 
demolished  them  and  defended  your  own  system  on  this 
point  our  readers  will  decide.  To  my  own  mind,  there  is 
no  v/ay  whereby  the  foregoing  difficulties  vv^hich  surround 
your  system  can  be  removed,  but  by  admitting  that  the 
visible  church  was  designed  to  be  the  usual  birthplace  of 
the  children  of  grace,  whether  infants  or  adults.    ' 

I  shall  close  this  letter  with  a  few  observations  on  John's 
baptisiQ.  I  have  said  in  tiie  fourth  letter,  ''that  admitting 
it  could  be  proved,  incontrovertibly,  that  John's  baptism 
was  administered  by  immersion,  it  would  not  thence  follow 
that  christian  baptism  was  to  be  administered  in  the  same 
manner,  for  John's  baptism  did  not  belong  to  the  christian, 
but  to  the  Jewish  dispensation  of  grace." 

To  this  you  object  iirp,  SrO  by  saying,  that  the  Lord's 
supper  was  instituted  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  or 
before  the  death  of  Clirist,  '-and  therefore  according  to  my 
assertion  cannot  be  a  New-Testament  ordinance." 

To  this  I  v/ould  reply,  that  there  were  reasons,  why,  if 
it  vvAS  not  indispensibly  necessary,  it  v/as yet  highly  expe- 
dient that  the  ordinance  of  the  supper  should  be  appoint- 
ed before  the  death  of  Christ,  or  v/hile  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion existed,  but  which  did  not  exist,  in  relation  to  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism.  One  was,  to  give  his  people  the 
highest  possible  evidence  of  his  love  to  them,  and  regard 
for  their  spiritual  interest.  It  was  appointed  at  the  time 
when  ^udas  was  prepaiing,  if  he  had  not  gone  out  to  betray 


£97 

him  inio  the  hands  of  his  implacable  enemies — -at  the  timt 
too,  when  the  powers  of  darkness  were  let  loose  uponhimj 
gnd  when  he  was  shortly  to  suffer  all  that  agony  of  soul 
which  he  suffered  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  not  onlv 
from  the  hidings  of  his  fatlier's  face,  but  from  the  pressure 
of  his  father's  wrath  upon  him  as  a  substitute  for  the  sins 
of  his  people,  and  which  was  to  issue  in  a  shameful  and 
excniciating  death.  His  people  are  sensible  of  this  when 
suiToundiiig  his  table,  and  the  consideration  of  such  unex- 
ampled love  to  thevn,  deepens  their  sorrow  for  their  sins^ 
which  were  the  cause  of  his  sufferings,  and  encreases  and 
expands  their  love  to  him,  v-'hose  love  to  them,  all  the  bil- 
lows of  earth  and  hell,  nor  yet  his  sufferings  ft^om  his  fath- 
er's wrath  could  quench.  And  as  the  divine  life  is  in- 
creased in  the  souls  of  Christ's  followers  through  suitable 
means,  the  views  and  feelings  which  have  been  mentioned, 
could  not  have  been  so  effectual!}'  produced,  had  that 
ordinance  been  appointed  after  his  resun^ection  from  the 
dead. 

But  there  is  anotlier  reason  why  it  was  appointed,  a=nd 
as  appears  to  myself,  why  it  v,  as  necessary  to  appoint  it  at 
that  time,  and  at  no  other — -namely,  to  inform  us,  that 
there  was  no  interregnum  in  the  kingdom  of  grace,  nor  a 
moment  when  the  church  of  God  v/ith  all  its  essential  ordi- 
nances, or  those  ordinances  that  had  reference  to  the  aton- 
ing blood  of  his  son,  ceased  to  exist  from  the  time  it  was 
constituted  by  the  promise,  "that  the  seed  of  the  woman 
should  bruise  the  serpent's  head."  And  although  I  have 
not  mentioned  it  before,  it  is  to  myself  one  of  the  strongest 
arguments  that  the  christian  vvas  ingrafted  into  the  Jewish 
dispensation  of  grace.  Both  ^latthew  and  Mark  inform 
us,  that  it  was  not  after  Christ  and  his  disciples  had  Bnish- 
ed  eating  the  passover,  that  the  ordinance  of  the  supper 
was  instituted;  but,  *'as  they  were  eating,"  Jesus  ''took 
bread  and  blessed  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  and  said, 
take,  eat,  this  is  my  body  broken  for  you,  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me."  The  preceding  considerations  will  con- 
vince you,  I  hope,  that  the  circumstance  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per being  appointed  at  the  time  it  was,  or  before  the  death 
of  Christ,  is  no  argument  that  John's  baptism  was  christian 
baptism. 

Acts  19:  1^ — 5,  has  been  frequently  adduced  as  a  proof 
that  John's  baptism  was  not  christian  baptism.     "x\nd  it 


298 

came  to  pass,  that  while  ApoUos  was  at  Corinth,  Paul  hav- 
ing passed  through  the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesusjaiid 
finding  certain  disciples,  he  said  uato  them,  have  ye  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed?  And  they  said 
unto  him,  we  have  not  so  much  ?.s  heard  vv-hether  there  be 
an  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  imto  them,  imto  what  th*en 
were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said  unto  John's  baptism. 
Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  vnth  the  baptism  un- 
to repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they  shotdd  be- 
lieve on  him  that  should  come  after  him,  that  is,,  on  Christ 
Jesus.  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, ''^ 

In  reply  to  this  you  say,  tliat  the  words,  "wlien  they 
heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  th^  name  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus," are  the  words  of  Paul,  and  designed  to  inform  us, 
that  Johns's  baptism,  and  Christian  baptism  were  the  same. 
Besides  the  marked  difference  between  the  two  ordinances 
Vvhich  v/e  shall  shortly  point  out,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  af- 
firming, that  there  is  not  an  individual  who  has  not  heard 
of  the  controvervSy  on  tiiis  rioint,  and  who  if  he  was  asked 
his  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  that  verse,  but  would  im- 
mediately say,  that  they  are  the  words  of  (he  inspired  his- 
torian, and  intended  to  inform  us,  that  the  persons  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  verses,  and  who  had  been  baptized 
by  John,  were  baptized  at  that  time  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  Understanding  the  words  as  the  words  of 
Luke,  they  are  clear  and  intelligible;  >but  understanding 
them  as  the  words  of  Paul,  they  are  not  only  dark  and  un-- 
intelligible,  but  convey  an  idea  the  very  reverse  of  wliat 
you  say  he  designed  to  convey.  They  are  a  reflection  on 
his  character  as  a  scholar  and  writer;  and  how  much  more 
when  it  is  considered  that  when  he  wrote  them,  he  v/as  un- 
der the  direction  of  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  infallibility. 
And  to  this  I  would  add,  that  the  vvords  "unto  what  then 
v.-ere  ye  baptized,"  convey  the  idea  of  diSerent  baptisms; 
and  I  vvdll  farther  add,  that  if  you  vrill  closely  examine  the 
interpretation  which  you  have  given  to  the  passage,  you 
v/ill  see  that  it  leads  to  this  absurdity — that  those  on  whom 
Paul  laid  his  iiands  were  the  people  whom  John  taught;  and 
that  all  the  men  whom  John  taught  were  about  twelve. 

In  p.  272  you  tell  us,  '-that  if  the  baptism  of  John  wr- 
not  christian  baptism,  then  neither  Christ  norhisdisciph' 
received  christian. baptism." 


299 

With  respect  to  the  disciples,  we  are  not  positively  told 
'that  thej  were  even  baptized  by  John:  and  it  is  not  legiti- 
mate reasoning  to  draw  positive '  conclusions  from  the  si- 
lence of  the  scriptures  on  this,  or  any  other  point.  Tlie 
disciples,  doubtless,  received  whatever  baptism  was  ne- 
cessary to  quality  them  for  the  ministerial  office.  I  have 
shewn  in  the  4tli  letter  whi^h  it  is  to  be  presumed  you  have 
read,  that  it  is  worse  than  absurd  to  say,  that  Jesus  was 
baptized  into  his  ov»'n  name  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
that  he  raiglit  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  regenerating 
influences^  but  Peter  positively  declares  that  christian 
baptism  was  appointed  for  this  purpose.  I  have  also  shewn 
that  Christ's  biiptisin  by  John,  was  not  the  same  as  the 
baptisrii  administered  to  the  Jews,  or  a  baptism  ''unto 
repentance;*'  but  for  the  purpose  of  inaugurating  him  into 
the  Priestly  office.  Tiiis  was  the  principal  end  for  Avhich 
John  came  into  the  world,  and  -was  probably  the  closing 
scene  of  his  ministry;  for  we  are  told  by  Luke,  that  it  was 
not  until  after  "all  the  people  w-ere  baptized  by  hiiii,'^'  that 
Jesus  presented  himself  to  be  baptized. 

The  argument  in  the  next  page  fur  the  identity  of  Jolin's 
and  christian  baptisin,  as  deduced  from  the  words,  '"He 
that  sent  me  to  baptize,"  is  in  my  opinion  very  inconclu- 
sive. It  was  the  closing  scene  of  the  Abrahamic  dispensa- 
tion, and  I  need  not  tell  you,  that  diSerent  rites,  and  de- 
signed for  different  purposes,  Vv'ere  appointed  under  that 
dispensation,  from  tin^.e  to  time.  It  might  be  as  well  said, 
that  the  christian  dispensation  commenced,  wdien  the 
various  ab'iutions  were  appointed  in  the  wilderness,  as 
when  John  v;as  sent  to  baptize. 

To  this  I  will  only  a<ld,  that  Christ's  testimony  in  re- 
gard to  John,  and  Jolin's  testimony  respecting  himself^, 
both  concur  in  telling  us,  that  neither  John's  preaching, 
nor  baptism,  belonged  Ao  the  Christian  dispensation  .of 
grace.  Christ  e:spressly  declares,  ''that  among  those  born 
of  women,  there  was  not  a  greater  prophet  than  John  the 
Baptist;  but  that  (he  least  in  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  the 
gospel  dispensation,  '*was  greater  than  he."  When  John 
began  to  preach,  he  did  not  say,  that  tlie  kingdom  of  heaven, 
or  the  gospel  dispensation  is  come;  but  'n-epentye,  for  the. 
kingdom  of  heav-en  is  at  handy  Christ  used  the  sa:r.e 
language  when  he  began  to  preach;  and  in  conformity  to  it 
enjoined  a  strict  observance  of  ail  the  ordinances  of  tiir 


300 

Jewisli  dispeHsation,  wmch  he  enforced  bj  hia  own  exam- 
ple. To  the  cleansed  leper  he  said,  "Go  thy  way,  shew 
ih jself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  the  gift  which  Moses  com- 
manded unto  them;^'  and  as  already  noticed,  he  ate  the 
passover  Avith  his  disciples,  the  very  night  before  he  suffer- 
ed, and  why  he  appointed  the  ordinance  of  the  supper  at 
that  time,  we  have  already  shewn.  But  what  fixes  more 
particularly  the  precise  time  of  difference  betv/een  John's 
baptism,  and  that  appointed  by  Christ  is,  what  John 
himself,  and  Christ  and  his  apostles  say  on  that  point. 
In  Acts  19:  4,  already  considered,  Paul  expressly  says, 
that  John  in  administering  his  baptism,  told  the  people 
^*that  they  should  believe  on  him  who  was  to  come,  that 
is  on  Christ  Jesus;"  but  the  Apostle  says,  "as  many  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  have  baen  baptized 
into  his  deathj"  or  into  a  Saviour  who  is  come,  and  who 
has  bled  and  died  for  the  sins  of  his  people,  and  risen 
again  for  their  justification.  John  tells  us  that  the  princi- 
pal design  of  his  baptism  was  to  manifest,  or  to  point  out 
Christ  to  the  Jewish  na.tion — ''"And  I  knew  him  not,  but  that 
h^hould  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come 
baptising;"  but  the  same  apostle  saith,  "as  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Clnist,  nave  put  on  Christ,"  by  a  pro- 
fession of  knowledge  of  him,  and  dedication  of  themselves 
to  his  service.  And  what  I  tiiink,  is  irresistible  and  unan- 
svv'erable  on  this  point  is — Christian  baptism  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  >Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost:  but  John  in  his  baptism  did  not  mention 
the  names  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  under  any  form  of  expres- 
sion whatever.  These,  Sir,  are  a  few  of  the  leasons  which 
induced  me  to  say  in  the  4th  letter,  "that  John's  baptism 
did  not  belong  to  the  Christian,  but  to  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation of  grace;"  and  not  because  I  dreaded  any  conse- 
quence prejudicial  to  the  Pedobaptism  system,  by  admit- 
ting with  you  that  they  are  the  same.  I  wish  you  also 
success  and  peace  in  the  Lord. 
Mlngo-Creeh,  December  1825.  SA^VIUEL  RALSTON. 

ERRATA. — Pag-e  28,  line  6  from  bottom,  for  sextual^  read  sexual. 
—'^6,  1.  17  do.  for  hither,  read  hitherto.— A9,  1.  9  from  bottom  of 
Note,  for  agreed^  read  argued. — 52,  1.  16  from  bottom,  for  not  ca- 
pable,  read  capable.— SO ^  1.  13  from  do,  for  mpport,  read  purport  — 
87,  1.  16  from  top,  fcr  hut  is  rights  read  butivhaf  is  right. — 177,  1. 
15  from  bottom,  after  the  word  gpaaking^  read  of. — 250,  1.  7  from 
top,  for  bv  PcdobopiiL'f,  read  sz^c'i  Pedobaptii't.—Nextline^  dele  such. 


•=^,: 


•^ . 


-MA 


r^l£l!0> 


